183

The Behavior of H and L Under Variations in Pitch Range inDutch Rising Contoursdagger

CARLOS GUSSENHOVEN and TONI RIETVELD

University of Nijmegen

INTRODUCTION

Intonation patterns of European languages can be represented as phonological structuresconsisting of strings of tones which are realized as pitch targets at specific locationsinside and at the edges of prosodic phrases Tones that receive targets at the edges boundarytones are transcribed T- and T in Pierrehumbertrsquos (1980) description of American Englishwhere T- occurs at the end of every intermediate phrase and T at the end of every intona-tional phrase which latter phrase is hierarchically above the former Internally realized

ABSTRACT

A Dutch rising intonation contour can be realized either as a rise that beginslow and ends mid -to -high ( ldquo low riserdquo) or as a rise that begins mid and endshigh ( ldquohigh riserdquo) These two contours could either be the extremes on aphonetic continuum representing a single phonological contour for instanceL H-H or be realizations of two phonologically different contours L H-H and H H- H In order to decide between these two analyses listenerswere asked to rate stimuli with different pitch ranges on a number of semanticscales whose meanings vary with pitch range Our hypothesis was that H-tonesare higher as the pitch range increases while L is lower Two preliminaryexperiments in which we presented F0 contours of high rises and low rises ina number of different pitch ranges revealed that perceived surprise rather

than perceived prominence is an appropriate response variable for measuring pitch range perceptionwhere increased pitch range corresponds to higher H- tones and lower L Subsequently listenerswere asked to indicate the degree to which each of a number of appropriately manipulated stimuliexpressed ldquoSurpriserdquo The results lend strong support to the hypothesis that the low rise and the highrise are categorically distinct contours of Dutch and that their first tones are L and H respectively

KEY WORDS

high rise

intonation

intonational phonology

low rise

pitch accent

dagger Acknowledgments The results of Experiment 3 were earlier reported at the Workshop on Prosodyand Intonation in Signed and Spoken Languages held in Haifa 8 ndash10 April 1997 and the ESCAWorkshop on Intonation Theory Models and Applications held in Athens 18ndash20 September1997 (cf Gussenhoven amp Rietveld 1997) We thank Henning Reetz Peter Roach Jennifer Vendittiand an anonymous reviewer for their useful comments on an earlier version of this text and aregrateful to those in the Haifa and Athens audiences who have likewise contributed to the finaltext through their questions and comments We thank Rob van den Berg for his assistance at variousstages of the experiments

Address for correspondence Carlos Gussenhoven Postbus 9103 6500 HD Nijmegen TheNetherlands e-mail ltcgussenhovenletkunnlgt

LANGUAGE AND SPEECH 2000 43 (2) 183 ndash 203

184 H and L in Dutch rising contours

tones or pitch accents are transcribed T As the term implies a pitch accent marks anaccented syllable it may be bitonal that is T+ T or T+ T in which case the starred toneis timed to coincide with the accented syllable An example of a phonological represen-tation is given in (1) together with two stylized contours varying in pitch range

(1)

(Two intermediate phrases) (in one intonational phrase)

H L + H -H L H L- L

In this autosegmental- metrical model a distinction is therefore made between thephonological representation that is the string of associated tones and the phonetic contoura sequence of pitch targets The way in which the phonetic implementation rules translatethe tonal representation into a physical contour is language- specific and context- sensitiveMoreover as indicated in (1) speakers have a great deal of freedom in the liveliness orprominence with which they pronounce the utterance and the range of F0 realizations ofany one phonological representation will therefore be quite large The important pointhere is that a given pair of contours in some language may in principle either be differentbecause they are the phonetic implementations of two different phonological representa-tions or because the phonetic implementation rules operated on the same phonologicalrepresentation in different conditions Perhaps more frequently than in the case of segmentaldifferences there may be a real question as to whether the difference between two phonet-ically different intonation contours is phonological (ie whether the two contours arerealizations of different tone strings) or phonetic in which case the contours are differentrealizations of the same phonological structure At the risk of laboring the obvious ananalogous question in the domain of vowel sounds would be whether long and short pronun-ciations of the vowel in American English good represent different phonological vowels(phonemes) in the way that the vowels in rude and wood are different or whether insteadthey represent different pronunciations of the same vowel perhaps expressing differentdegrees of emotional involvement As in other phonological domains such questions arecentral in intonational research and their answers are essential to unraveling the phono-logical and thus the morphological and semantic structure of intonation This article isconcerned with one such question the status of the difference between the high rise andthe low rise in Dutch

In American English a language with an intonation system very similar to Dutchvarious authors have drawn a distinction between ldquohigh riserdquo and ldquolow riserdquo contours forexample the distinction between HH- H and L H-H in the system of Pierrehumbert(1980) From our own informal observation in Dutch the high rise has mid pitch at a pointhalfway into the accented syllable often after a low pitch right at the CV boundary of theaccented syllable while the low rise has low pitch during the first half of the accentedsyllable (if in IP - final position) or throughout the accented syllable (in at least oneunaccented syllable follows in the IP) If there is sufficient space between the accentedsyllable and the end of the IP a level stretch occurs after the low rise and high rise followedby a further rise in the last syllable In other cases (as with IP- final accented syllables)

185C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

the two rising movements form a single continuous rise Examples of these contours aregiven in Figure 1 as pronounced on the one-accent sentence Zijn er meLOENen teveellsquoAre there too many melonsrsquo in both cases with a low-pitched prehead The level sectionin the high rise (top panel) can clearly be identif ied after the low prehead the H definesa mid pitch target which value then continues (H- does not receive a different target afterH) to be followed by a rise on the final syllable to the target of H1 The level stretchin the low rise (bottom panel) is barely identif iable as such as it only occurs on the singlesyllable te after the low or weakly falling prehead there is a low pitch target defined byL from where the pitch moves to the mid target of H- and on to the high target of HAuditorily the difference between the low rise and the high rise is that the high rise has amidpitched accented syllable while the low rise has a low-pitched one

The distinction between the two contours in Figure 1 has not been recognized as aphonological contrast in descriptions of Dutch intonation (cf rsquot Hart Collier amp Cohen1990 Gussenhoven 1988 1991) The IPO grammar (Collier amp rsquot Hart 1980 rsquot Hart et al1990) describes H H-H as ldquo1 2rdquo where the ldquo2rdquo corresponds to H and ldquo1rdquo an accent-lending pitch rise corresponds to the movement from low prehead to H(H-) Gussenhovenonly offers LH H the equivalent of L H-H The LH pitch accent may appear indifferent guises one of which is LH H but none would be equivalent to PierrehumbertrsquosH H -H We explicitly equated Pierrehumbertrsquos H H-H with a LH H contourpronounced with wide span in a higher pitch register in Gussenhoven and Rietveld (1991pp 430ndash 431)2

Nevertheless there are several indications that Dutch too has a high rise which isdiscretely different from a low rise First Collins and Mees (1981 p 238) in fact describetwo contours for Dutch one of which would appear to be a low range L H-H (theirldquolow riserdquo) the other H H-H their ldquohigh riserdquo and they point out that the Dutch highrise is common where British English would use a low rise Second the implementationof Gussenhovenrsquos description in a synthesis program (Gussenhoven amp Rietveld 1992) hasmade it possible to test transcriptions of real speech data using the ldquoanalysis - through -resynthesisrdquo technique of rsquot Hart et al (1990) This technique amounts to an auditorycomparison between the original contour and an artif icial contour produced on the basisof the analystrsquos transcription of the original contour If one of these can be accepted as animitation of the other the analyst can be more confident that the analysis is correct Thesynthetic intonation contours have been found to reproduce the intonation patterns used inspontaneous and read speech very realistically indeed with the exception of the high riseWhen the high rise is modeled as L H-H the low rise produced by the program strikeslisteners as a different and frequently inappropriate imitation of the original speech inparticular when the high rise is used nonfinally in the utterance Third work by Judith

1 Final H will be raised above the level of a preceding H-tone the realization of which wascalled ldquoupsteprdquo by Pierrehumbert (1980) The abstract H - in Pierrehumbertrsquos representation for the English high rise is dispensed with in the transcription system for Dutch intonation (ToDI) proposed by Gussenhoven Terken and Rietveld accessible on the Internet atlthttp landsletkunnl todigt (posted July 1999)

2 Table 1 of that article inadvertently lists the contour as being ldquohalf-completedrdquo as well

184 H and L in Dutch rising contours

tones or pitch accents are transcribed T As the term implies a pitch accent marks anaccented syllable it may be bitonal that is T+ T or T+ T in which case the starred toneis timed to coincide with the accented syllable An example of a phonological represen-tation is given in (1) together with two stylized contours varying in pitch range

(1)

(Two intermediate phrases) (in one intonational phrase)

H L + H -H L H L- L

In this autosegmental- metrical model a distinction is therefore made between thephonological representation that is the string of associated tones and the phonetic contoura sequence of pitch targets The way in which the phonetic implementation rules translatethe tonal representation into a physical contour is language- specific and context- sensitiveMoreover as indicated in (1) speakers have a great deal of freedom in the liveliness orprominence with which they pronounce the utterance and the range of F0 realizations ofany one phonological representation will therefore be quite large The important pointhere is that a given pair of contours in some language may in principle either be differentbecause they are the phonetic implementations of two different phonological representa-tions or because the phonetic implementation rules operated on the same phonologicalrepresentation in different conditions Perhaps more frequently than in the case of segmentaldifferences there may be a real question as to whether the difference between two phonet-ically different intonation contours is phonological (ie whether the two contours arerealizations of different tone strings) or phonetic in which case the contours are differentrealizations of the same phonological structure At the risk of laboring the obvious ananalogous question in the domain of vowel sounds would be whether long and short pronun-ciations of the vowel in American English good represent different phonological vowels(phonemes) in the way that the vowels in rude and wood are different or whether insteadthey represent different pronunciations of the same vowel perhaps expressing differentdegrees of emotional involvement As in other phonological domains such questions arecentral in intonational research and their answers are essential to unraveling the phono-logical and thus the morphological and semantic structure of intonation This article isconcerned with one such question the status of the difference between the high rise andthe low rise in Dutch

In American English a language with an intonation system very similar to Dutchvarious authors have drawn a distinction between ldquohigh riserdquo and ldquolow riserdquo contours forexample the distinction between HH- H and L H-H in the system of Pierrehumbert(1980) From our own informal observation in Dutch the high rise has mid pitch at a pointhalfway into the accented syllable often after a low pitch right at the CV boundary of theaccented syllable while the low rise has low pitch during the first half of the accentedsyllable (if in IP - final position) or throughout the accented syllable (in at least oneunaccented syllable follows in the IP) If there is sufficient space between the accentedsyllable and the end of the IP a level stretch occurs after the low rise and high rise followedby a further rise in the last syllable In other cases (as with IP- final accented syllables)

185C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

the two rising movements form a single continuous rise Examples of these contours aregiven in Figure 1 as pronounced on the one-accent sentence Zijn er meLOENen teveellsquoAre there too many melonsrsquo in both cases with a low-pitched prehead The level sectionin the high rise (top panel) can clearly be identif ied after the low prehead the H definesa mid pitch target which value then continues (H- does not receive a different target afterH) to be followed by a rise on the final syllable to the target of H1 The level stretchin the low rise (bottom panel) is barely identif iable as such as it only occurs on the singlesyllable te after the low or weakly falling prehead there is a low pitch target defined byL from where the pitch moves to the mid target of H- and on to the high target of HAuditorily the difference between the low rise and the high rise is that the high rise has amidpitched accented syllable while the low rise has a low-pitched one

The distinction between the two contours in Figure 1 has not been recognized as aphonological contrast in descriptions of Dutch intonation (cf rsquot Hart Collier amp Cohen1990 Gussenhoven 1988 1991) The IPO grammar (Collier amp rsquot Hart 1980 rsquot Hart et al1990) describes H H-H as ldquo1 2rdquo where the ldquo2rdquo corresponds to H and ldquo1rdquo an accent-lending pitch rise corresponds to the movement from low prehead to H(H-) Gussenhovenonly offers LH H the equivalent of L H-H The LH pitch accent may appear indifferent guises one of which is LH H but none would be equivalent to PierrehumbertrsquosH H -H We explicitly equated Pierrehumbertrsquos H H-H with a LH H contourpronounced with wide span in a higher pitch register in Gussenhoven and Rietveld (1991pp 430ndash 431)2

Nevertheless there are several indications that Dutch too has a high rise which isdiscretely different from a low rise First Collins and Mees (1981 p 238) in fact describetwo contours for Dutch one of which would appear to be a low range L H-H (theirldquolow riserdquo) the other H H-H their ldquohigh riserdquo and they point out that the Dutch highrise is common where British English would use a low rise Second the implementationof Gussenhovenrsquos description in a synthesis program (Gussenhoven amp Rietveld 1992) hasmade it possible to test transcriptions of real speech data using the ldquoanalysis - through -resynthesisrdquo technique of rsquot Hart et al (1990) This technique amounts to an auditorycomparison between the original contour and an artif icial contour produced on the basisof the analystrsquos transcription of the original contour If one of these can be accepted as animitation of the other the analyst can be more confident that the analysis is correct Thesynthetic intonation contours have been found to reproduce the intonation patterns used inspontaneous and read speech very realistically indeed with the exception of the high riseWhen the high rise is modeled as L H-H the low rise produced by the program strikeslisteners as a different and frequently inappropriate imitation of the original speech inparticular when the high rise is used nonfinally in the utterance Third work by Judith

1 Final H will be raised above the level of a preceding H-tone the realization of which wascalled ldquoupsteprdquo by Pierrehumbert (1980) The abstract H - in Pierrehumbertrsquos representation for the English high rise is dispensed with in the transcription system for Dutch intonation (ToDI) proposed by Gussenhoven Terken and Rietveld accessible on the Internet atlthttp landsletkunnl todigt (posted July 1999)

2 Table 1 of that article inadvertently lists the contour as being ldquohalf-completedrdquo as well

185C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

the two rising movements form a single continuous rise Examples of these contours aregiven in Figure 1 as pronounced on the one-accent sentence Zijn er meLOENen teveellsquoAre there too many melonsrsquo in both cases with a low-pitched prehead The level sectionin the high rise (top panel) can clearly be identif ied after the low prehead the H definesa mid pitch target which value then continues (H- does not receive a different target afterH) to be followed by a rise on the final syllable to the target of H1 The level stretchin the low rise (bottom panel) is barely identif iable as such as it only occurs on the singlesyllable te after the low or weakly falling prehead there is a low pitch target defined byL from where the pitch moves to the mid target of H- and on to the high target of HAuditorily the difference between the low rise and the high rise is that the high rise has amidpitched accented syllable while the low rise has a low-pitched one

The distinction between the two contours in Figure 1 has not been recognized as aphonological contrast in descriptions of Dutch intonation (cf rsquot Hart Collier amp Cohen1990 Gussenhoven 1988 1991) The IPO grammar (Collier amp rsquot Hart 1980 rsquot Hart et al1990) describes H H-H as ldquo1 2rdquo where the ldquo2rdquo corresponds to H and ldquo1rdquo an accent-lending pitch rise corresponds to the movement from low prehead to H(H-) Gussenhovenonly offers LH H the equivalent of L H-H The LH pitch accent may appear indifferent guises one of which is LH H but none would be equivalent to PierrehumbertrsquosH H -H We explicitly equated Pierrehumbertrsquos H H-H with a LH H contourpronounced with wide span in a higher pitch register in Gussenhoven and Rietveld (1991pp 430ndash 431)2

Nevertheless there are several indications that Dutch too has a high rise which isdiscretely different from a low rise First Collins and Mees (1981 p 238) in fact describetwo contours for Dutch one of which would appear to be a low range L H-H (theirldquolow riserdquo) the other H H-H their ldquohigh riserdquo and they point out that the Dutch highrise is common where British English would use a low rise Second the implementationof Gussenhovenrsquos description in a synthesis program (Gussenhoven amp Rietveld 1992) hasmade it possible to test transcriptions of real speech data using the ldquoanalysis - through -resynthesisrdquo technique of rsquot Hart et al (1990) This technique amounts to an auditorycomparison between the original contour and an artif icial contour produced on the basisof the analystrsquos transcription of the original contour If one of these can be accepted as animitation of the other the analyst can be more confident that the analysis is correct Thesynthetic intonation contours have been found to reproduce the intonation patterns used inspontaneous and read speech very realistically indeed with the exception of the high riseWhen the high rise is modeled as L H-H the low rise produced by the program strikeslisteners as a different and frequently inappropriate imitation of the original speech inparticular when the high rise is used nonfinally in the utterance Third work by Judith

1 Final H will be raised above the level of a preceding H-tone the realization of which wascalled ldquoupsteprdquo by Pierrehumbert (1980) The abstract H - in Pierrehumbertrsquos representation for the English high rise is dispensed with in the transcription system for Dutch intonation (ToDI) proposed by Gussenhoven Terken and Rietveld accessible on the Internet atlthttp landsletkunnl todigt (posted July 1999)

2 Table 1 of that article inadvertently lists the contour as being ldquohalf-completedrdquo as well

186 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Figure 1

F0 contours of a high rise (top) and a low rise (bottom) on the sentence Zijn er me-LOENenteveel lsquoAre there too many melonsrsquo Female speaker (BP)

187C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

Haan (personal communication) suggests that the high rise is relatively frequent in speechread aloud In a corpus of 800 sentences (equally divided over declaratives wh-questionspolar questions and declarative sentences closed by question mark) read by 10 speakers99 were spoken with H H-H (virtually all of them in the polar questions) in contrastto 40 spoken with L H-H or LL-H the latter transcription describing a contour whichremains low after a low accented syllable right until the final rise In no case did it appearto be difficult to decide which of the two contours the high rise or a low rise was used

A possible difference between the two contours concerns their behavior under changesin pitch range Liberman and Pierrehumbert (1984) have suggested that L is lowered asthe pitch range increases where pitch range is defined operationally as the variable thatspeakers manipulate when they are asked to ldquospeak uprdquo Perceptually range differenceshave been widely associated with perceived prominence that is scores obtained fromlisteners who are asked to indicate the degree of emphasis on a particular syllable or word(Gussenhoven amp Rietveld 1988) If L were to attract higher perceived prominence as itis realized with lower pitch this behavior would be in sharp contrast to that of H-toneswhich are raised as the pitch range is increased3 Such different effects of L and H-toneswould constitute a very powerful probe into the phonological structure of intonationcontours Not only could it be exploited to establish the discrete nature of the phonologicaldifference at issue it would also provide evidence for the tonal characterization of thecontrast the target that is lowered when prominence is increased must be L while raisedtargets must derive from H- tones As it happens evidence for the negative correlationbetween pitch range and the pitch of L is not easy to find While there is abundant evidencethat higher realizations of H correspond to increased pitch range leading to higherperceived prominence (eg Gussenhoven Repp Rietveld Rump amp Terken 1997 Laddamp Morton 1997) little is known about the behavior of the pitch targets in LH -(H)contours Before formulating a testable hypothesis therefore we wanted to understandbetter how pitch range perception varies as a result of variations in the realization of theL-tone more specifically how the three pitch targets in L H-H contours (the beginningthe mid level part and the end) influenced pitch range perception Only if it can beestablished that the pitch of L is inversely related to pitch range while the pitch of the twoH- tones in this contour are positively related will we entertain the hypothesis that thebeginning pitches of low rises and high rises (respectively L and H on Pierrehumbertrsquostheory) have opposite effects on perceived pitch range

It is not immediately obvious what response variable best captures variations in pitchrange In fact the phonetic variation referred to as ldquospeaking uprdquo by Liberman andPierrehumbert (1984) may be of two kinds variation in pitch level and variation in pitchspan (Ladd 1996 p 260) Increases in pitch level involve a (nonlinear) raising of all valueswhile increases in pitch span involve such raising of all values except the lowest Thesetwo types of variation will have different perceptual effects as shown in Patterson and

3 Models of pitch scaling for English and Dutch generally place the target of unstarred L- tones atthe same pitch (in the case of final L) or at a higher pitch (in the case of nonfinal L- tones) whenthe pitch range is increased (eg Liberman amp Pierrehumbert 1984 Ladd 1987 1990Gussenhoven amp Rietveld 1992) The lowering of L in increased pitch ranges may therefore beunique to that tone

188 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Ladd (1999) who find that ldquodeepness of the voicerdquo correlates with variation in pitch levelmeasures while for instance ldquoexpressivenessrdquo and ldquoemphasisrdquo correlate with pitch spanmeasures Our research question concerns perceptual attributes that correlate with variationsin pitch span rather than pitch level since we aim to show that increases in pitch spanlower the values corresponding to L targets while raising H-tones Promising attributeswould seem to be ldquoexpressivenessrdquo ldquolivelinessrdquo and ldquoinsistencerdquo

In fact finding the right perceptual attribute proved more difficult than expectedOur first choice was perceived prominence in L H-H contours This attribute has widelybeen shown to be an auditory correlate of pitch range in contours with an accentual peakThe results of this first attempt reported in the main part of this article as Experiment 1led us to reject perceived prominence as a response variable as listeners appeared to interprettheir task in a ldquolocalrdquo sense The results suggest that judges paid attention to the extent towhich the pitch movements were located in the accented syllable since they judgedutterance -final accented syllables very differently from nonfinal ones In particular whilethe endpoint of the rise (the realization of H) had a clear effect on perceived prominenceif the accented syllable was utterance - final (and the rising contour thus ended inside thatsyllable) it had no effect if the accented syllable was nonfinal (and the endpoint of the risewas located outside the accented syllable) Conversely the starting point of the rise thetarget of L only had an effect if the accented syllable was nonfinal Here the pitch hasonly just begun to rise at the end of the syllable causing the low beginning to be more salientcompared to the low beginning in final accented syllables where the high endpoint is locatedinside the same syllable masking the salience of the low beginning The prominencejudgments thus appeared to reflect phonetic salience of the pitch contour in accentedsyllables rather than contour-wide pitch span Arguably ldquoprominentrdquo may not be apragmatic or emotional attribute of linguistic utterances like ldquoangryrdquo ldquoinsistentrdquoldquoplacatingrdquo and so forth and it may be better to regard it as an attribute of the speech signallike ldquocoarserdquo ldquoloudrdquo and ldquomelodiousrdquo Our next attempt was to try out a number of moreevidently message-oriented attributes In Experiment 2 we investigated the perceivedindignation the perceived surprise and the perceived insistence of low rising contours asa function of the same phonetic variation as in Experiment 1

Out of three potential attributes investigated in Experiment 2 we hoped that at leastone behaved in the way that might allow us to test our hypothesis It is important to see thatthe failure of most of the perceptual attributes that we investigated failed to show increaseswith decreased F0 for L does not make our subsequent research results less interestingor less reliable First our aim was not to investigate the pragmatic correlates of pitch spanwe are purely interested in showing that low rises and high rises behave differently insome condition so as to have evidence that they are in fact different Second whateverattribute we were to identify in Experiment 2 the effect is to be demonstrated in a thirdindependent Experiment 3 in which the behavior of the low rise and the high rise couldbe compared Experiment 2 showed that perceived surprise had the effect on L we werelooking for and the results of Experiment 3 showed very clearly that listeners perceivelower beginnings of the low rise but higher beginnings of the high rise as conveying moresurprise The three experiments are reported in the next three sections A final sectionprovides a general conclusion

189C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

EXPERIMENT 1 THE PROMINENCE OF L H-H

Method

The purpose of Experiment 1 was to establish how variations in the F0 of L H- and Haffect the perceived prominence on accented words realized with a L H-H contour Weincluded both stimuli with the accented syllable in final position where L H- and Hare realized on the same syllable and stimuli with the accent in nonfinal position inwhich the targets of L and H- occur in or near the accented syllable but that of H appearson the final syllable All stimuli were manipulated versions of two utterances which hadone accented syllable printed in capitals below and which were originally spoken by a malenative speaker of standard Dutch with a weakly rising pitch accent on the capitalized wordsThe utterance durations were 1577 ms and 1716ms respectively

1 Een nieuwe motor is te DUURlsquoA new engine is too expensiversquo

2 Je was al EERder bij hem geweestlsquoYou had been to see him beforersquo

The stimuli were generated using the PSOLA-technique as included in the speechpackage PRAAT developed at the University of Amsterdam (Boersma amp Weenink) TheF0 of L H- and H was varied in three steps In stimuli with final accented syllables(cf the first utterance above) the F0 of H- was not included as a variable since its targetis located on the rising slope and does not constitute a separate acoustic event Crossingthe three steps led to nine stimuli (Set 1 see Table 1) In the stimuli with a nonfinal accent(cf the second utterance above) the three steps for L were combined with each of thethree steps for H- and each of those for H resulting in two sets of nine stimuli (Sets 2and 3 see Table 1) Contours began at 100Hz fell during 20ms to the value for L whichstarted at one- tenth of the vowel duration after the CV boundary and was held for 150 msIn the stimuli with nonfinal accent a 120ms rise to the value of H- was followed by a levelstretch a final rise of 100ms to the value of H followed by a 100ms level stretch In thestimuli with final accent the value for L was followed by a rise of 120 ms to the value forH These specifications were in part modeled on pronunciations of the sentences by thesame speaker and in part on trial and error Before creating the artif icial contours weincreased the articulation rate by multiplying the duration of all frames in the original speechfiles by 085 which appeared to us to improve the naturalness of the stimuli

Each set of nine stimuli was randomized six times resulting in 18 blocks of ninestimuli These were divided into two sets of nine blocks and each set was recorded onto aTK50 audiotape Each of the nine blocks was preceded by a 750ms warning signal corre-sponding to a new page of the response booklet Each stimulus was preceded by an anchorstimulus produced from the same original speech file as the test stimulus This anchorstimulus had an artificial L H L- L contour that is a rising- falling contour with apeak of 150 Hz on the syllable that carried the accent in the following test stimulus Thustwo different anchors one with a final and one with a nonfinal accent were included onthe tapes The interval between the anchor stimulus and the test stimulus was 2 s and thatbetween a test stimulus and the anchor stimulus of the next item was 55 s In additioneach tape began with 12 practice stimuli The total test duration was approximately 15 mins

190 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Two groups of 15 listeners were recruited from the student population of the Universityof Nijmegen approximately equally divided over both sexes with ages ranging between 19and 28 Each group of subjects was asked to listen to one of the tapes mdash each tape had adifferent random order of the stimuli mdash and to indicate the degree of ldquoEMPHASISrdquo with which the accented word in each stimulus was spoken by placing a tick across a 10 cmlong line which was uncalibrated except for a mark placed exactly in the middle Thisprocedure is similar to that known as ldquoline productionrdquo (Lodge 1981) a form of magnitudeestimation (cf Bard Robertson amp Sorace 1996) Each scale was labeled ldquolittle emphasisrdquoon the left and ldquomuch emphasisrdquo on the right4 In the response booklets the accentedword (eerder or duur) was printed to the left of each scale In the instruction judges weretold that the level of emphasis of the corresponding word in the anchor stimulus representeda position halfway down the scale as indicated by the midway calibration mark This enabledthem to relate their judgments to this value

Results

Scores were obtained by measuring the distances in millimeters from the beginning ofeach line to the marks placed by the judges There were no missing data Separate Analysesof Variance for each stimulus set were carried out (repeated measures only Huynh-Feldtcorrected significance levels are reported cf Rietveld amp van Hout 1993) Within - factorsfor Sets 1 and 2 were the scores for L and H and for Set 3 those for L and H- Theresults showed a significant effect of H in Set 1 F (258)= 744 plt01 and significanteffects of L in Sets 2 and 3 F (258)= 647 plt05 and F(258)= 1629 plt01 respec-tively There were no significant interactions In other words in final accented syllablesonly the end point has an effect on the perceived prominence while for nonfinal accentedsyllables both in combination with a varying H- and in combination with a varying Honly the beginning point has an effect on the perceived prominence In both cases the effectsconfirm the hypothesis that lower realizations of L and higher realizations of H lead togreater perceived prominence (cf Table 2)

Conclusion

Experiment 1 was only partly successful It showed that L behaved in the expected mannerwith lower values eliciting higher prominence judgments but also that judges paid noattention to its target in f inal position while conversely H elicited the expected

TABLE 1

F0 steps in Hz of L H- and H in three sets of stimuli

Accent location L H- H Nr of stimuli

Set 1 Final 80 90 100 ndash 140 150 160 9 Set 2 Nonfinal 80 90 100 130 140 150 160 9 Set 3 Nonfinal 80 90 100 120 130 140 150 9

4 In the original Dutch text the word nadruk was used for ldquoemphasisrdquo

191C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

prominence judgments only when the accent was located on a final syllable A possibleexplanation of these results would focus on the perceived prominence as the dependentvariable prominence may be interpreted locally and judgments may be triggered by themost salient feature in the accented syllable In the case of prominence judgments madeon the basis of L H L- L contours the cue provided by the height of the peak argu-ably the most salient feature is judged more consistently (barring the effect of the contourrsquosbeginning pitch which may determine the perception of the pitch range and barring theeffect of declination which causes later peaks to have less prominence and lower pitch(Gussenhoven et al 1997 Pierrehumbert 1979)) since the starting point of the rise andthe end point of the fall both happen to be in or near the accented syllable regardless ofthe location of the accent It seemed better therefore to look for a dependent variable whichis signaled by means of variations in pitch range but which listeners might respond to ina way that does not draw their attention to the physical shape of the contour Experiment 2was undertaken to find such a response variable

EXPERIMENT 2 LOOKING FOR A NEW RESPONSE VARIABLE

Method

The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the effect of variation in the F0 of LH- and H on the perception of a number of attributes which we hypothesized dependedon pitch range variation Basing ourselves on intuition we selected three attributes SURPRISEINSISTENCE and INDIGNATION Again our hypothesis was that for each of these attributeslower values of L and higher values of H- and H would result in higher scores Becauseour materials in Experiment 1 were somewhat limited both in the number of sourceutterances (two) and in syntactic structure (both were syntactic declaratives) we augmentedthe old stimuli with a new set based on two new utterances representing syntactic questionsspoken by the same speaker These utterances were provided with artif icial intonationcontours and overall speech rate following the same specifications as in Experiment 1 (seeTable 1) The new source utterances were pronunciations of sentences [3] and [4] belowwhich had durations of 1027 ms and 1492ms respectively

3 Is honderd gulden niet VEELlsquoIsnrsquot a hundred guilders a lotrsquo

TABLE 2

Mean prominence scores for each F0 step listed in order of increasing F0 in three stimulus setsSignificant factors are listed in the last column

L H- H

Targets in HzAccent location 80 90 100 120 130 140 140 150 160 plt05

Set 1 Final 532 541 504 ndash 510 525 541 H Set 2 Nonfinal 612 572 526 ndash 569 574 564 L Set 3 Nonfinal 632 604 568 626 597 582 ndash L

192 H and L in Dutch rising contours

4 Zijn er niet MEER mensen op afgekomenlsquoHavenrsquot more people comersquo

We prepared four test tapes Two of these contained the stimuli used in Experiment 1Sets 1 2 and 3 based on utterances 1 and 2 totaling 9 (stimuli per set) acute 3 (sets) or 27stimuli These 27 stimuli were randomized four times and recorded onto two digital tapessuch that each tape contained 54 test stimuli These were preceded on each tape by a set ofseven practice stimuli and followed by two filler stimuli so that the resulting 63 (ie 54+2+ 7) stimuli per tape could be blocked in nine groups of seven A block began with a 750mswarning signal followed by a 3s pause corresponding to a new page of the response bookletEach stimulus was presented three times with two 2 s intervals followed by a 6s pause Inthe same way two tapes were prepared that contained the stimuli based on utterances 3and 4 The total duration of each test tape was 13mins

The response booklets gave three scales for each stimulus each printed as ahyphenated series of numerals from 1 to 105 Each of the three scales was preceded by oneof the following descriptions always in this order6

yen the speaker expresses his surpriseyen the speaker insists on receiving an answer yen the speaker vents his indignation

Thirty-two judges whose ages ranged from 19 to 32 and who were equally dividedover both sexes were recruited among students and staff of the University of NijmegenThey were split into four groups of eight divided four-four or three- five over the two sexesThey were paid a small fee The four tapes were played to the four groups of judges overheadphones in a language laboratory They were instructed to judge the extent to whicheach stimulus conveyed the meanings given in the labels by circling one of the numeralsmaking up the corresponding scale Judges were encouraged to time the recording of theirjudgments in tune with the repetitions of each stimulus and to try and use the full rangeof the scales

Results

There were three missing data points which were supplied by taking the median of thescores for the item concerned within the group of eight judges Raw scores obtained in thefour tests were pooled For each of the three response categories separate Analyses ofVariance for each of the three stimulus sets were carried out (repeated measures onlyHuynh-Feldt corrected significance levels are reported) Within - factors for sets 1 and 2were the scores for L and H and for set 3 those for L and H- In the case of SURPRISEsignificant effects for L and H were observed in all cases (L set 1 F(262)= 1483plt001 L set 2 F(262)= 1963 plt001 L set 3 F(262)= 775 p=002 H set 1F(262)= 1126 plt001 H set 2 F(262)= 2165 plt001 but the scores for H- in set 3

5 It was felt that the transfer of scores from three uncalibrated scales might be unreasonably time-consuming and possibly error-prone which is the reason we opted for the 10-points scales

6 The Dutch labels were respectively ldquoDe spreker drukt zijn verbazing uitrdquo ldquoDe spreker dringtaan op een antwoordrdquo and ldquoDe spreker geeft blijk van verontwaardigingrdquo

193C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

were not significant In the case of the response variable INSISTENCE there was a significanteffect for H in set 1 the set with final accent (H set 1 F(262)=764 plt01) In the datafor INDIGNATION the factor L was significant in set 2 the set with nonfinal accent withvariable H (L set 2 F(262)= 574 plt01) There were no significant interactions Table3 lists mean scores per F0 variable separately for each stimulus set for the three responsevariables Significant factors are listed in the last column

Conclusion

The results of Experiment 2 suggest that the attributes INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION are notperceived in accordance with the hypothesis that these dependent variables correlate withvariations in pitch range whereby pitch range can be increased by lowering L and raisingH- and H In fact the scores for the significant factor L in set 1 for INDIGNATION showa pattern which is the inverse of what we had expected to find in these data increasedperceived Indignation corresponding to higher values for L This result would appear toconfirm the conclusion of Mozziconacci (1998 p 121) that INDIGNATION is a perceptualattribute of ldquo12rdquo (in IPO-notation) that is H H-H contours with high pitch level andlarge pitch ranges The positive correlation between the F0 of L and perceived indignationmay point to a different type of manipulation of the pitch range in indignant speech thanin surprised speech Indignant speech may be cued by raising what Ladd (1996) calls theoverall pitch level instead of the pitch span

In contrast to the results for INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION the attribute SURPRISE

produced scores which were consistently in agreement with our hypothesis It is possiblethat the poor results for INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION were in part due the fact that these

TABLE 3

Mean SURPRISE INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION scores for each F0 step listed in order of increas-ing F0 in three stimulus sets

L H- H

Target in Hz Accent location 80 90 100 120 130 140 140 150 160 plt05

SurpriseSet 1 Final 537 468 426 ndash 426 484 521 L HSet 2 Nonfinal 559 525 445 ndash 447 518 563 L HSet 3 Nonfinal 625 590 570 563 574 648 ndash L

InsistenceSet 1 Final 545 538 537 ndash 528 510 582 ndashSet 2 Nonfinal 615 617 655 ndash 620 626 641 HSet 3 Nonfinal 616 625 627 622 623 623 ndash ndash

IndignationSet 1 Final 465 482 506 ndash 482 498 473 ndashSet 2 Nonfinal 432 468 512 ndash 500 458 455 LSet 3 Nonfinal 417 421 403 413 417 411 ndash ndash

194 H and L in Dutch rising contours

scales occupied the second and third positions respectively on the response sheets Theattention of the judges may well have slackened off after they had filled in the SURPRISE

scale which headed the list of three scales for each stimulus With hindsight it might havebeen better to present the stimuli separately for each response variable This would alsohave made it possible to include anchor stimuli as in Experiment 1 the omission of whichmay have contributed to the more erratic nature of the scores in Experiment 2

The aim of Experiment 2 was to find a response variable that depended on the pitchspan of the contour as conceived in the way outlined above and on the basis of these resultstherefore Experiment 3 can take as its starting point an appropriately refined hypothesiswith ldquoperceived surpriserdquo as the response variable Although it was not our purpose toestablish the full spectrum of attitudinal or emotional effects of different pitch range manip-ulations future research might well further explore the effects of pitch level and pitch spanin signaling of speaker attitudes and emotions

EXPERIMENT 3 PITTING L AGAINST H

Method

The purpose of Experiment 3 was to replicate the results obtained in Experiment 2 forSURPRISE and moreover to show that high rise contours analyzed as H H-H behave inthe same way as low rise contours for this dependent variable with the crucial exceptionthat lower beginnings of the high rise cause the utterance to express less surprise insteadof more as found for L in Experiment 2 To this end a different male speaker of Dutchrecorded the four sentences of Experiment 2 each spoken with an unemphatic weakly risingpitch accent on digital tape The durations were

1 Een nieuwe motor is te DUUR 1234ms

2 Je was al EERder bij hem geweest 1432ms

3 Is honderd gulden niet VEEL 1224ms

4 Zijn er niet MEER mensen op afgekomen 1608ms

Since the speech rate of these new utterances was some 20 faster than that of theutterances used for Experiment 1 the speech rate was left unchanged The F0 was artif i-cially manipulated with the help of the P-SOLA program made available in PRAAT Wedecided not to vary the F0 of H- in this test because the H H-H contours do not havea separate pitch target corresponding to H- and inclusion of this variable in the low risecontours would thus have introduced an imbalance in our experiment We used substan-tially higher values for H- and for the three steps for H as the old values produced asomewhat dull effect in these new utterances which we feared would have led to a crowdingof scores at the low end of the scale Table 4 gives the F0 values we used while diagram-matic representations of the stimuli are given in Figure 2

Since the variation in the F0 of the starred tone (3 steps) was crossed with the variationin the F0 of H (3 steps) there were nine stimuli for each source utterance The F0 of thepost-accentual mid-high level in the L H-H stimuli with nonfinal accent was heldconstant at 145 Hz Again in the corresponding stimuli with final accent there was nosuch mid level section F0 rising smoothly from the target of L to that of H The target

195C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

TABLE 4

F0 steps in Hz for L and H in final and nonfinal accented low rising contours and of H(H-)and H in final and nonfinal accented high rising contours used in Experiment 3

Accent location L H- H Nr of stimuli

Final 80 90 100 ndash 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 80 90 100 145 185 200 215 9

HH- H

Final 130 145 160 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 130 145 160 185 200 215 9

Figure 2

Diagrammatic representations of the stimuli used in Experiment 2 Nonfinal-accented L H-H is given in panel a final-accented L H-H in panel b nonfinal-accented H H-H inpanel c and final-accented H H-H in panel d

196 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for T began at one-tenth of the duration of the vowel after the CV boundary followingan 80ms rise in the case of H and a 20 ms fall in the case of L each starting at 100Hzthe end point of the prehead Except in the case of the final word duur the target of Lwas 80 ms long The target for H- after L and that of HH- (which have a single F0) ceased100ms before the target of H The end point of the final rise was located at the pointwhere the F0 reached a peak in the original contour which resulted in final voiced levelstretches varying from 0 (duur) to 70 ms (afgekomen) The target for L on duur lasted100 ms which left 80 ms for the final rise As before these values were arrived at on thebasis of the naturally spoken utterances and informal judgments of the naturalness of theartif icial contours

The total number of stimuli was 72 (2 contours acute 9 versions acute 4 sentences) We added24 fillers equally divided over the four source utterances with a variety of realization ofa L H L-H (ie a rising -falling -rising) contour This was done in order to increasethe intonational variety in the test These 96 items were randomized twice and each orderwas recorded onto digital tape preceded by ten practice stimuli of which the first eightwere identif ied as such in the instruction sheet and followed by two closing stimuli TheInter-Stimulus Interval was 45s The 108 stimuli (4 sentences acute 2 contours acute 9 versions=72 + 10 practice stimuli + 2 closing stimuli + 24 fillers) were presented in seven blocks of15 and one block of 3 Each block corresponded to a page on the answer sheet and waspreceded by a brief excerpt from a piano recital to give listeners an opportunity to relaxand turn the page The musical excerpt was followed by a 6 s pause and an anchor stimuluswhich was a pronunciation of the phrase Maal honderdTIEN ( lsquotimes a hundred -and -tenrsquo) produced by the same speaker who produced the source utterances realized with aL H L-H contour with a peak of 144 Hz and a low baseline of 110 Hz The degree ofsurprise realized in this anchor stimulus was said to lie exactly halfway on the scale InExperiment 1 we had an anchor stimulus before every stimulus This seemed to usunnecessary by the time we were designing Experiment 3 Pilot research without any anchorstimuli by Hedi Klein Tank had shown that for each page in the answer booklet the variancein the scores was positively correlated with serial position on the page It would appeartherefore that without anchors judges lose some of their orientation on the scale at theturn of each page Anchoring the scale at exactly those points in the test would thus seemto be the appropriate procedure

Two groups of subjects aged between 19 and 30 were recruited from the studentpopulation of Nijmegen one consisting of 15 and the other of 14 subjects The two tapeseach with a different random order of the stimuli were played at a comfortable volume vialoudspeakers to the two groups of subjects Judges were asked to rate the degree of surpriseexpressed by the intonation of each stimulus by placing a mark on a 100mm scale as inExperiment I They were paid a small fee

Results

Scores were obtained as for Experiment 1 An Analysis of Variance (repeated measures)was carried out to assess the influence of the independent variables on the scores Fourwithin -subject factors were included in the design ACCENT- LOCATION (early late)CONTOUR (L H-H vs H H-H) HEIGHT-OF-T (3 levels) and HEIGHT-OF-H (3 levels) In order to have an appropriate ratio between the number of independent

197C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

variables and the number of subjects scores were pooled over the four sentences nestedunder ACCENT- LOCATION Adopting a significance level of 05 we found the followingsignificant main effects CONTOUR F (128)= 1281 p= 001 HEIGHT-OF -TF(256)=5997 plt 001 and HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)=2603 plt 001 Two-way inter-actions were obtained for ACCENT- LOCATION CONTOUR F(256)= 6317 plt 001ACCENT- LOCATION acute HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)= 1187 plt001 and CONTOURacute HEIGHT-OF-T F (256)= 504 p=01 Where appropriate all significance levels wereHuynh-Feldt corrected

The important result here is the interaction between CONTOUR and HEIGHT-OF-T It indicates that raising the beginning of the rise does not have the same effect in thelow rise as it has in the high rise In order to assess the extent to which the scores variedas a function of the beginning of the rise in the L H-H and H H-H contours a trendanalysis (SPSS-MANOVA) was carried out on the data with a polynomial fitted consistingof a linear and a quadratic component An overall linear component as a function ofHEIGHT-OF-T was found to be significant F(128)= 7503 plt001 which interactedsignificantly with the factor CONTOUR F(128)= 810 p=008 The quadratic componentwas not significant

Figure 3 in which the scores for L and H are plotted for different levels of Hshows the crucial interaction graphically Data are pooled over four sentences In the toppanel we see that the lowest value (130 Hz) for H resulted in the lowest level of perceivedsurprise while the highest value (160Hz) expresses the highest degree In the bottom panelthe inverse relation is apparent for L Also the constant effect of H can be clearly seenin both contour types the degree of perceived surprise increases with increasing values ofH with only the stimuli combining L = 80 Hz and H= 185 Hz falling somewhat abovethe expected location

Discussion

The results of Experiment 3 replicate those obtained for perceived surprise in Experiment 2The conclusion must be that ldquohigh risesrdquo and ldquolow risesrdquo form separate phonological cate-gories in Dutch and moreover that ldquolow risesrdquo begin with L and ldquohigh risesrdquo begin withH We will return to this finding in the General Discussion

The effect of ACCENT- LOCATION and its significant interactions with CONTOURand HEIGHT-OF-H are of less interest The first interaction is due to the fact thatscores for the high rise are considerably higher for final accents than for nonfinal accentswhile those for the low rise are less affected by accent location and show a less extremebut opposite pattern Figure 4 presents the scores separately for final and nonfinal accents(pooled over two sentences) showing this interaction in nonfinal position high risingcontours convey less surprise than low- rising contours (panels (b) and (d)) while in finalposition this is not the case (cf panels (a) and (c)) Since the most striking data here arethe low scores for the high rise in nonfinal position this result can be explained by the factthat in these contours two relatively small F0- rises are divided over two syllables Bycontrast in the three other conditions the rises are either piled on top of each other (finalaccent) or the first of them is considerably larger (low rise on nonfinal accent) Lastly theinteraction between ACCENT- LOCATION and HEIGHT-OF-H is due to the greaterdifferentiation of the scores for H in final-accented rising stimuli as compared with those

198 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for the corresponding stimuli with nonfinal accents This effect visible in panels (a) and(c) versus (b) and (d) in Figure 4 is most probably to be explained on the basis of the greatersalience of H in rising contours that serve to accent final syllables

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In a series of experiments we investigated the behavior of Dutch rising nuclear contours asa function of changes in pitch range by asking listeners to rate such contours on perceivedattributes believed to be expressed through variations in pitch range Our interest in the firsttwo experiments was in the behavior of L which had been claimed to be lowered withincreasing pitch range The first attribute we investigated prominence (Experiment 1)showed that perceived prominence is not an appropriate response variable since listenersperceive prominence in terms of salient pitch characteristics in the accented syllablerather than of the entire contour as realized over a polysyllabic stretch of speech In effectthey ignored the beginning of the rising movement in contours with final accent and theend in contours with nonfinal accent Experiment 2 which was undertaken to see if oneor more of the attributes ldquosurpriserdquo ldquoinsistencerdquo and ldquoindignationrdquo was perceived as afunction of the entire contour showed that perceived surprise correlated with the pitchrange if pitch range is assumed to be increased by raising H-tones but lowering L Onthe basis of the results of Experiment 3 in which the L H-H contour was compared withthe H H-H contour we found that perceived surprise is higher as the end of the rising

(a)

Figure 3

Perceived surprise as a function of H andH (panel (a)) and L and H (panel (b))

(b)

199C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

contour is higher but that the effect of the beginning of the rising contour in the accentedsyllable depends on whether relative to the preceding pitch it begins low in which casegreater surprise is signaled by lower pitch or high in which case the opposite is true

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these findings First it may not be usefulto consider perceived prominence to be an interesting attribute of a nuclear contour like LH-H or of the nuclear accent L It is of course common to think about pitch accents asdiscrete elements which are either present or absent and to believe that when presentthey have some level of prominence or strength This ldquoaccent strengthrdquo is we like to thinka function of the pitch level and pitch span specifications of the contour (Gussenhoven etal 1997) but it would now appear that information about these specifications cannot alwaysbe obtained by asking listeners to rate syllables (accents words or phrases) for perceivedprominence since these judgments are strongly influenced by the contextually determinedshape of the pitch contour in the accented syllable such that final and nonfinal accentedsyllables may receive very different reactions even if the pitch targets are identical

Figure 4

Perceived surprise as a function of H and H (top panels) and of L and H (bottom panels)for stimuli with final accents (panels (a) and (c)) and nonfinal accents (panels (b) and (d))separately

200 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Second one way in which speakers can convey surprise in Dutch is by increasing thepitch range as conceived by Liberman -Pierrehumbert lowering L and raising H-tones(A caveat is in order for speaker gender our results are based on the evaluation of malespeech) There are reports however that suggest that L- tones go up when the pitch rangeis increased Erickson Honda Hirai Beckman and Niimi (1994) show that increased levelsof vocal effort (soft voice normal voice loud voice) correlate with F0 of L in English theloud voice has the highest L- tones These findings are not contradictory however if thedistinction between pitch level and pitch span (Ladd 1996 p 260) is observed Restrictingourselves to within -speaker variation the strategy of overall raising of the pitch level whichwould only appear to be possible for the whole contour should perhaps be associated withhigher levels of arousal As was observed in the Discussion for Experiment 2 indignationis possibly expressed in this way as can be concluded on the basis of our finding thathigher targets for L lead to higher perceived indignation in two of the three types of stimuliAlso ldquospeaking uprdquo may employ this type of variation as suggested by the results ofErickson et al (1994) where the overall pitch raising may be seen as due to the effort toproduce a signal that carries over a greater distance By contrast expansion of the pitchspan is more appropriate for increases in what we might call intonational ldquoexplicitnessrdquoto be used when expressing emphasis or surprise and possibly in utterances that serve ascorrections of earlier utterances that were misunderstood or to listeners who are (believedto be) hard of hearing

The third conclusion is most immediately related to the purpose of our experimentsThe results of Experiment 3 provide strong support for the phonological analysis of risesby Pierrehumbert (1980) who described the equivalent American English contours as LH -H (low rise) and H H- H (high rise) respectively In combination with theassumption made in Liberman and Pierrehumbert (1984) that L is lowered but H-tonesraised when the pitch range is increased that analysis accurately explains the resultsobtained That is L H H and H H-H are categorically distinct contours of DutchThe alternative interpretation by which the contours corresponding to these transcriptionsform a single phonological class and represent different realizations varying merely ingradient pitch range must be excluded If our stimuli represented different realizations ofthe same phonological contour we would have expected the phonetic variation from highto low pitch in the accented syllable to have a uniform effect on the perception of the gradientattribute ldquosurpriserdquo

We must be careful to restrict our hypothesis that increased pitch span is achieved bylowering F0 to starred L- tones in Dutch Other L- tones may not behave in the same wayIndeed Fant and Kruckenberg (1994) found for Swedish that greater emphasis causes thelow F0 of Accent 2 to be lower but the low F0 for Accent 1 as well as all other targets tobe higher suggesting that not all L- tones are treated alike As observed by Ladd(forthcoming) the standard analysis (eg Bruce 1990) which analyzes Accent 1 as HLand Accent 2 as HL does not predict this result since one would sooner expect the L ofAccent 1 than the unstarred L- tone of Accent 2 to define the lower boundary of the pitchspan and thus be lowered with increased emphasis

Because the terms ldquohigh riserdquo and ldquolow riserdquo have been used in slightly differentmeanings we should be careful to prevent our results from being generalized to other distinc-tions In descriptions of British English ldquohigh risesrdquo are usually distinguished from ldquolow

201C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

risesrdquo on the basis of the end point For instance Halliday (1970) and OrsquoConnor and Arnold(1973) identify a rise from midlow to high (the ldquohigh riserdquo) as well as one from low tomidlow (the ldquolow riserdquo) Tench (1996) distinguishes low neutral and high rises on thebasis of the end point Crystal (1969) distinguishes three beginning points (high mediumlow) and three excursion sizes (wide normal narrow) to give nine categorically differentrises We believe that the rises described by these authors are versions of the L H-(H)contour with different pitch ranges Indeed the spoken illustrations accompanyingHalliday (1970) sound like such contours although the high rise is described as having amidlow beginning Cruttenden (1997 pp 51ndash 52) recognizes a (British) ldquolow riserdquo (ielow- range L L- H) as a category distinct from H H-H but suggests that wide-range L H-H and H H-H should be seen as a single category He also suggests thatH H-H is frequent in General American but has a low frequency of occurrence in BritishEnglish where the (British) ldquolow riserdquo tends to be used instead (see also 1997 pp 88 99)Cruttenden (1995) points out that utterance -final rises are on the increase in SouthernBritish speech among which there may well be ldquohigh risesrdquo (see also House 1998)

The description of Dutch intonation offered in rsquot Hart et al (1990) which makes nodistinction between the ldquohigh riserdquo and the ldquolow riserdquo could be modified so as to allow thecombination ldquo3rdquo (a late accent-lending rise) with ldquo2rdquo (equivalent to H) instead of justwith ldquoCrdquo (a nonaccent-lending fall) The combination ldquo32rdquo would then correspond to theldquolow riserdquo while ldquo12rdquo would represent only the ldquohigh riserdquo The description of Gussenhoven(1988 1991) which produces on a contour inventory based on phonological variations onthree basic pitch accents without ever producing a contour like the ldquohigh riserdquo should beaugmented with the contour H H which transcription adequately describes the two targetsof the ldquohigh riserdquo (see also Footnote 1)

Finally a more general conclusion In Experiment 3 we have seen how an investi-gation of the perceptual effects of pitch range led to a confirmation of a particular tonalanalysis of rising intonations This illustrates the importance of basing our data on as widea range of observations as possible The consideration of pitch range variation appears notonly to be relevant for studying models of phonetic implementation (cf Liberman ampPierrehumbert 1984) but also for models of phonological structure Indeed GrabeGussenhoven Haan Marsi and Post (1997) illustrates how studying the perception ofspeaker attitudes can lead to meaningful conclusions about intonational structure Theincreased interest for intonational meaning that seems to be detectable in experimentalresearch may therefore well lead to an improved understanding of morphology andphonology of intonation

Received January 18 1999 revised manuscript received September 22 1999 accepted December 6 1999

202 H and L in Dutch rising contours

REFERENCES

BARD E G ROBERTSON D amp SORACE A (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic accept-ability Language 72 32ndash68

BECKMAN M amp PIERREHUMBERT J B (1986) Intonational structure in English and JapanesePhonological Yearbook 3 255ndash310

BOERSMA P amp WEENINK D lthttpfonsg3letuvanlpraatgtBRUCE G (1990) Alignment and composition of tonal accents Comments on Silverman and

Pierrehumbertrsquos paper In J Kingston amp M Beckman (Eds) Papers in laboratory phonologyBetween the grammar and physics of speech (pp107ndash 114) Cambridge UK CambridgeUniversity Press

COLLIER R amp rsquot HART J (1980) Cursus Nederlandse IntonateLouvain AccoCOLLINS B amp MEES I (1981) The sounds of English The Hague Leiden University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1997) Intonation (2nd ed) Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1995) Rises in English In J Windsor Lewis (Ed) Studies in general and English

phonetics (pp155ndash173) London RoutledgeCRYSTAL D (1969) Prosodic systems and intonation in English Cambridge UK Cambridge

University PressERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H BECKMAN M E amp NIIMI S (1994) Global pitch range

and the production of low tones in English intonation International Conference on the Processingof Spoken Language 3 651ndash654

ERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H amp BECKMAN M E (1996) The production of low tonesin English intonation Journal of Phonetics 23 179ndash188

FANT G amp KRUCKENBERG A (1994) Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish SpeedTransmission Laboratorymdash Quarterly Status and Progress Report 2ndash 3 (pp125ndash 144) Alsopublished in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody 1994 Yokohama Japan

GRABE E GUSSENHOVEN C HAAN J MARSI E amp POST B (1997) Preaccentual pitch andspeaker attitude in Dutch Language and Speech 41 63ndash85

GUSSENHOVEN C (1988) Adequacy in intonation analysis The case of Dutch In H van der Hulstamp N Smith (Eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology (pp95ndash121) DordrechtForis

GUSSENHOVEN C (1991) Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch In T F Shannon amp J P Snapper(Eds) The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp139ndash 155) Lanham MDUniversity Press of America

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1988) Fundamental frequency declination in DutchTesting three hypotheses Journal of Phonetics 16 355ndash369

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1991) An experimental evaluation of two nuclear tonetaxonomies Linguistics 29 423ndash449

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1992) A target-interpolation model for the intonation of DutchICSLP2 (pp1235ndash1238)

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1997) Empirical evidence for the contrast between L andH in Dutch rising contours In A Botinis G Kouroupetroglou amp G Caryannis (Eds) Inton-ation Theory models and application Proceedings of ESCA workshop (pp169ndash172) AthensESCA and University of Athens

GUSSENHOVEN C REPP B H RIETVELD T RUMP H H amp TERKEN J (1997) The perceptualprominence of fundamental frequency peaks Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1023009ndash3022

HALLIDAY M A K (1970) IntonationLondon Oxford University Pressrsquot HART J COLLIER R amp COHEN A (1990) A perceptual study of intonation An experimental

phonetic approach Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressHOUSE J (1998) Review of Tench (1996) English Language and Linguistics 2 137ndash139

187C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

Haan (personal communication) suggests that the high rise is relatively frequent in speechread aloud In a corpus of 800 sentences (equally divided over declaratives wh-questionspolar questions and declarative sentences closed by question mark) read by 10 speakers99 were spoken with H H-H (virtually all of them in the polar questions) in contrastto 40 spoken with L H-H or LL-H the latter transcription describing a contour whichremains low after a low accented syllable right until the final rise In no case did it appearto be difficult to decide which of the two contours the high rise or a low rise was used

A possible difference between the two contours concerns their behavior under changesin pitch range Liberman and Pierrehumbert (1984) have suggested that L is lowered asthe pitch range increases where pitch range is defined operationally as the variable thatspeakers manipulate when they are asked to ldquospeak uprdquo Perceptually range differenceshave been widely associated with perceived prominence that is scores obtained fromlisteners who are asked to indicate the degree of emphasis on a particular syllable or word(Gussenhoven amp Rietveld 1988) If L were to attract higher perceived prominence as itis realized with lower pitch this behavior would be in sharp contrast to that of H-toneswhich are raised as the pitch range is increased3 Such different effects of L and H-toneswould constitute a very powerful probe into the phonological structure of intonationcontours Not only could it be exploited to establish the discrete nature of the phonologicaldifference at issue it would also provide evidence for the tonal characterization of thecontrast the target that is lowered when prominence is increased must be L while raisedtargets must derive from H- tones As it happens evidence for the negative correlationbetween pitch range and the pitch of L is not easy to find While there is abundant evidencethat higher realizations of H correspond to increased pitch range leading to higherperceived prominence (eg Gussenhoven Repp Rietveld Rump amp Terken 1997 Laddamp Morton 1997) little is known about the behavior of the pitch targets in LH -(H)contours Before formulating a testable hypothesis therefore we wanted to understandbetter how pitch range perception varies as a result of variations in the realization of theL-tone more specifically how the three pitch targets in L H-H contours (the beginningthe mid level part and the end) influenced pitch range perception Only if it can beestablished that the pitch of L is inversely related to pitch range while the pitch of the twoH- tones in this contour are positively related will we entertain the hypothesis that thebeginning pitches of low rises and high rises (respectively L and H on Pierrehumbertrsquostheory) have opposite effects on perceived pitch range

It is not immediately obvious what response variable best captures variations in pitchrange In fact the phonetic variation referred to as ldquospeaking uprdquo by Liberman andPierrehumbert (1984) may be of two kinds variation in pitch level and variation in pitchspan (Ladd 1996 p 260) Increases in pitch level involve a (nonlinear) raising of all valueswhile increases in pitch span involve such raising of all values except the lowest Thesetwo types of variation will have different perceptual effects as shown in Patterson and

3 Models of pitch scaling for English and Dutch generally place the target of unstarred L- tones atthe same pitch (in the case of final L) or at a higher pitch (in the case of nonfinal L- tones) whenthe pitch range is increased (eg Liberman amp Pierrehumbert 1984 Ladd 1987 1990Gussenhoven amp Rietveld 1992) The lowering of L in increased pitch ranges may therefore beunique to that tone

188 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Ladd (1999) who find that ldquodeepness of the voicerdquo correlates with variation in pitch levelmeasures while for instance ldquoexpressivenessrdquo and ldquoemphasisrdquo correlate with pitch spanmeasures Our research question concerns perceptual attributes that correlate with variationsin pitch span rather than pitch level since we aim to show that increases in pitch spanlower the values corresponding to L targets while raising H-tones Promising attributeswould seem to be ldquoexpressivenessrdquo ldquolivelinessrdquo and ldquoinsistencerdquo

In fact finding the right perceptual attribute proved more difficult than expectedOur first choice was perceived prominence in L H-H contours This attribute has widelybeen shown to be an auditory correlate of pitch range in contours with an accentual peakThe results of this first attempt reported in the main part of this article as Experiment 1led us to reject perceived prominence as a response variable as listeners appeared to interprettheir task in a ldquolocalrdquo sense The results suggest that judges paid attention to the extent towhich the pitch movements were located in the accented syllable since they judgedutterance -final accented syllables very differently from nonfinal ones In particular whilethe endpoint of the rise (the realization of H) had a clear effect on perceived prominenceif the accented syllable was utterance - final (and the rising contour thus ended inside thatsyllable) it had no effect if the accented syllable was nonfinal (and the endpoint of the risewas located outside the accented syllable) Conversely the starting point of the rise thetarget of L only had an effect if the accented syllable was nonfinal Here the pitch hasonly just begun to rise at the end of the syllable causing the low beginning to be more salientcompared to the low beginning in final accented syllables where the high endpoint is locatedinside the same syllable masking the salience of the low beginning The prominencejudgments thus appeared to reflect phonetic salience of the pitch contour in accentedsyllables rather than contour-wide pitch span Arguably ldquoprominentrdquo may not be apragmatic or emotional attribute of linguistic utterances like ldquoangryrdquo ldquoinsistentrdquoldquoplacatingrdquo and so forth and it may be better to regard it as an attribute of the speech signallike ldquocoarserdquo ldquoloudrdquo and ldquomelodiousrdquo Our next attempt was to try out a number of moreevidently message-oriented attributes In Experiment 2 we investigated the perceivedindignation the perceived surprise and the perceived insistence of low rising contours asa function of the same phonetic variation as in Experiment 1

Out of three potential attributes investigated in Experiment 2 we hoped that at leastone behaved in the way that might allow us to test our hypothesis It is important to see thatthe failure of most of the perceptual attributes that we investigated failed to show increaseswith decreased F0 for L does not make our subsequent research results less interestingor less reliable First our aim was not to investigate the pragmatic correlates of pitch spanwe are purely interested in showing that low rises and high rises behave differently insome condition so as to have evidence that they are in fact different Second whateverattribute we were to identify in Experiment 2 the effect is to be demonstrated in a thirdindependent Experiment 3 in which the behavior of the low rise and the high rise couldbe compared Experiment 2 showed that perceived surprise had the effect on L we werelooking for and the results of Experiment 3 showed very clearly that listeners perceivelower beginnings of the low rise but higher beginnings of the high rise as conveying moresurprise The three experiments are reported in the next three sections A final sectionprovides a general conclusion

189C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

EXPERIMENT 1 THE PROMINENCE OF L H-H

Method

The purpose of Experiment 1 was to establish how variations in the F0 of L H- and Haffect the perceived prominence on accented words realized with a L H-H contour Weincluded both stimuli with the accented syllable in final position where L H- and Hare realized on the same syllable and stimuli with the accent in nonfinal position inwhich the targets of L and H- occur in or near the accented syllable but that of H appearson the final syllable All stimuli were manipulated versions of two utterances which hadone accented syllable printed in capitals below and which were originally spoken by a malenative speaker of standard Dutch with a weakly rising pitch accent on the capitalized wordsThe utterance durations were 1577 ms and 1716ms respectively

1 Een nieuwe motor is te DUURlsquoA new engine is too expensiversquo

2 Je was al EERder bij hem geweestlsquoYou had been to see him beforersquo

The stimuli were generated using the PSOLA-technique as included in the speechpackage PRAAT developed at the University of Amsterdam (Boersma amp Weenink) TheF0 of L H- and H was varied in three steps In stimuli with final accented syllables(cf the first utterance above) the F0 of H- was not included as a variable since its targetis located on the rising slope and does not constitute a separate acoustic event Crossingthe three steps led to nine stimuli (Set 1 see Table 1) In the stimuli with a nonfinal accent(cf the second utterance above) the three steps for L were combined with each of thethree steps for H- and each of those for H resulting in two sets of nine stimuli (Sets 2and 3 see Table 1) Contours began at 100Hz fell during 20ms to the value for L whichstarted at one- tenth of the vowel duration after the CV boundary and was held for 150 msIn the stimuli with nonfinal accent a 120ms rise to the value of H- was followed by a levelstretch a final rise of 100ms to the value of H followed by a 100ms level stretch In thestimuli with final accent the value for L was followed by a rise of 120 ms to the value forH These specifications were in part modeled on pronunciations of the sentences by thesame speaker and in part on trial and error Before creating the artif icial contours weincreased the articulation rate by multiplying the duration of all frames in the original speechfiles by 085 which appeared to us to improve the naturalness of the stimuli

Each set of nine stimuli was randomized six times resulting in 18 blocks of ninestimuli These were divided into two sets of nine blocks and each set was recorded onto aTK50 audiotape Each of the nine blocks was preceded by a 750ms warning signal corre-sponding to a new page of the response booklet Each stimulus was preceded by an anchorstimulus produced from the same original speech file as the test stimulus This anchorstimulus had an artificial L H L- L contour that is a rising- falling contour with apeak of 150 Hz on the syllable that carried the accent in the following test stimulus Thustwo different anchors one with a final and one with a nonfinal accent were included onthe tapes The interval between the anchor stimulus and the test stimulus was 2 s and thatbetween a test stimulus and the anchor stimulus of the next item was 55 s In additioneach tape began with 12 practice stimuli The total test duration was approximately 15 mins

190 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Two groups of 15 listeners were recruited from the student population of the Universityof Nijmegen approximately equally divided over both sexes with ages ranging between 19and 28 Each group of subjects was asked to listen to one of the tapes mdash each tape had adifferent random order of the stimuli mdash and to indicate the degree of ldquoEMPHASISrdquo with which the accented word in each stimulus was spoken by placing a tick across a 10 cmlong line which was uncalibrated except for a mark placed exactly in the middle Thisprocedure is similar to that known as ldquoline productionrdquo (Lodge 1981) a form of magnitudeestimation (cf Bard Robertson amp Sorace 1996) Each scale was labeled ldquolittle emphasisrdquoon the left and ldquomuch emphasisrdquo on the right4 In the response booklets the accentedword (eerder or duur) was printed to the left of each scale In the instruction judges weretold that the level of emphasis of the corresponding word in the anchor stimulus representeda position halfway down the scale as indicated by the midway calibration mark This enabledthem to relate their judgments to this value

Results

Scores were obtained by measuring the distances in millimeters from the beginning ofeach line to the marks placed by the judges There were no missing data Separate Analysesof Variance for each stimulus set were carried out (repeated measures only Huynh-Feldtcorrected significance levels are reported cf Rietveld amp van Hout 1993) Within - factorsfor Sets 1 and 2 were the scores for L and H and for Set 3 those for L and H- Theresults showed a significant effect of H in Set 1 F (258)= 744 plt01 and significanteffects of L in Sets 2 and 3 F (258)= 647 plt05 and F(258)= 1629 plt01 respec-tively There were no significant interactions In other words in final accented syllablesonly the end point has an effect on the perceived prominence while for nonfinal accentedsyllables both in combination with a varying H- and in combination with a varying Honly the beginning point has an effect on the perceived prominence In both cases the effectsconfirm the hypothesis that lower realizations of L and higher realizations of H lead togreater perceived prominence (cf Table 2)

Conclusion

Experiment 1 was only partly successful It showed that L behaved in the expected mannerwith lower values eliciting higher prominence judgments but also that judges paid noattention to its target in f inal position while conversely H elicited the expected

TABLE 1

F0 steps in Hz of L H- and H in three sets of stimuli

Accent location L H- H Nr of stimuli

Set 1 Final 80 90 100 ndash 140 150 160 9 Set 2 Nonfinal 80 90 100 130 140 150 160 9 Set 3 Nonfinal 80 90 100 120 130 140 150 9

4 In the original Dutch text the word nadruk was used for ldquoemphasisrdquo

191C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

prominence judgments only when the accent was located on a final syllable A possibleexplanation of these results would focus on the perceived prominence as the dependentvariable prominence may be interpreted locally and judgments may be triggered by themost salient feature in the accented syllable In the case of prominence judgments madeon the basis of L H L- L contours the cue provided by the height of the peak argu-ably the most salient feature is judged more consistently (barring the effect of the contourrsquosbeginning pitch which may determine the perception of the pitch range and barring theeffect of declination which causes later peaks to have less prominence and lower pitch(Gussenhoven et al 1997 Pierrehumbert 1979)) since the starting point of the rise andthe end point of the fall both happen to be in or near the accented syllable regardless ofthe location of the accent It seemed better therefore to look for a dependent variable whichis signaled by means of variations in pitch range but which listeners might respond to ina way that does not draw their attention to the physical shape of the contour Experiment 2was undertaken to find such a response variable

EXPERIMENT 2 LOOKING FOR A NEW RESPONSE VARIABLE

Method

The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the effect of variation in the F0 of LH- and H on the perception of a number of attributes which we hypothesized dependedon pitch range variation Basing ourselves on intuition we selected three attributes SURPRISEINSISTENCE and INDIGNATION Again our hypothesis was that for each of these attributeslower values of L and higher values of H- and H would result in higher scores Becauseour materials in Experiment 1 were somewhat limited both in the number of sourceutterances (two) and in syntactic structure (both were syntactic declaratives) we augmentedthe old stimuli with a new set based on two new utterances representing syntactic questionsspoken by the same speaker These utterances were provided with artif icial intonationcontours and overall speech rate following the same specifications as in Experiment 1 (seeTable 1) The new source utterances were pronunciations of sentences [3] and [4] belowwhich had durations of 1027 ms and 1492ms respectively

3 Is honderd gulden niet VEELlsquoIsnrsquot a hundred guilders a lotrsquo

TABLE 2

Mean prominence scores for each F0 step listed in order of increasing F0 in three stimulus setsSignificant factors are listed in the last column

L H- H

Targets in HzAccent location 80 90 100 120 130 140 140 150 160 plt05

Set 1 Final 532 541 504 ndash 510 525 541 H Set 2 Nonfinal 612 572 526 ndash 569 574 564 L Set 3 Nonfinal 632 604 568 626 597 582 ndash L

192 H and L in Dutch rising contours

4 Zijn er niet MEER mensen op afgekomenlsquoHavenrsquot more people comersquo

We prepared four test tapes Two of these contained the stimuli used in Experiment 1Sets 1 2 and 3 based on utterances 1 and 2 totaling 9 (stimuli per set) acute 3 (sets) or 27stimuli These 27 stimuli were randomized four times and recorded onto two digital tapessuch that each tape contained 54 test stimuli These were preceded on each tape by a set ofseven practice stimuli and followed by two filler stimuli so that the resulting 63 (ie 54+2+ 7) stimuli per tape could be blocked in nine groups of seven A block began with a 750mswarning signal followed by a 3s pause corresponding to a new page of the response bookletEach stimulus was presented three times with two 2 s intervals followed by a 6s pause Inthe same way two tapes were prepared that contained the stimuli based on utterances 3and 4 The total duration of each test tape was 13mins

The response booklets gave three scales for each stimulus each printed as ahyphenated series of numerals from 1 to 105 Each of the three scales was preceded by oneof the following descriptions always in this order6

yen the speaker expresses his surpriseyen the speaker insists on receiving an answer yen the speaker vents his indignation

Thirty-two judges whose ages ranged from 19 to 32 and who were equally dividedover both sexes were recruited among students and staff of the University of NijmegenThey were split into four groups of eight divided four-four or three- five over the two sexesThey were paid a small fee The four tapes were played to the four groups of judges overheadphones in a language laboratory They were instructed to judge the extent to whicheach stimulus conveyed the meanings given in the labels by circling one of the numeralsmaking up the corresponding scale Judges were encouraged to time the recording of theirjudgments in tune with the repetitions of each stimulus and to try and use the full rangeof the scales

Results

There were three missing data points which were supplied by taking the median of thescores for the item concerned within the group of eight judges Raw scores obtained in thefour tests were pooled For each of the three response categories separate Analyses ofVariance for each of the three stimulus sets were carried out (repeated measures onlyHuynh-Feldt corrected significance levels are reported) Within - factors for sets 1 and 2were the scores for L and H and for set 3 those for L and H- In the case of SURPRISEsignificant effects for L and H were observed in all cases (L set 1 F(262)= 1483plt001 L set 2 F(262)= 1963 plt001 L set 3 F(262)= 775 p=002 H set 1F(262)= 1126 plt001 H set 2 F(262)= 2165 plt001 but the scores for H- in set 3

5 It was felt that the transfer of scores from three uncalibrated scales might be unreasonably time-consuming and possibly error-prone which is the reason we opted for the 10-points scales

6 The Dutch labels were respectively ldquoDe spreker drukt zijn verbazing uitrdquo ldquoDe spreker dringtaan op een antwoordrdquo and ldquoDe spreker geeft blijk van verontwaardigingrdquo

193C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

were not significant In the case of the response variable INSISTENCE there was a significanteffect for H in set 1 the set with final accent (H set 1 F(262)=764 plt01) In the datafor INDIGNATION the factor L was significant in set 2 the set with nonfinal accent withvariable H (L set 2 F(262)= 574 plt01) There were no significant interactions Table3 lists mean scores per F0 variable separately for each stimulus set for the three responsevariables Significant factors are listed in the last column

Conclusion

The results of Experiment 2 suggest that the attributes INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION are notperceived in accordance with the hypothesis that these dependent variables correlate withvariations in pitch range whereby pitch range can be increased by lowering L and raisingH- and H In fact the scores for the significant factor L in set 1 for INDIGNATION showa pattern which is the inverse of what we had expected to find in these data increasedperceived Indignation corresponding to higher values for L This result would appear toconfirm the conclusion of Mozziconacci (1998 p 121) that INDIGNATION is a perceptualattribute of ldquo12rdquo (in IPO-notation) that is H H-H contours with high pitch level andlarge pitch ranges The positive correlation between the F0 of L and perceived indignationmay point to a different type of manipulation of the pitch range in indignant speech thanin surprised speech Indignant speech may be cued by raising what Ladd (1996) calls theoverall pitch level instead of the pitch span

In contrast to the results for INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION the attribute SURPRISE

produced scores which were consistently in agreement with our hypothesis It is possiblethat the poor results for INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION were in part due the fact that these

TABLE 3

Mean SURPRISE INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION scores for each F0 step listed in order of increas-ing F0 in three stimulus sets

L H- H

Target in Hz Accent location 80 90 100 120 130 140 140 150 160 plt05

SurpriseSet 1 Final 537 468 426 ndash 426 484 521 L HSet 2 Nonfinal 559 525 445 ndash 447 518 563 L HSet 3 Nonfinal 625 590 570 563 574 648 ndash L

InsistenceSet 1 Final 545 538 537 ndash 528 510 582 ndashSet 2 Nonfinal 615 617 655 ndash 620 626 641 HSet 3 Nonfinal 616 625 627 622 623 623 ndash ndash

IndignationSet 1 Final 465 482 506 ndash 482 498 473 ndashSet 2 Nonfinal 432 468 512 ndash 500 458 455 LSet 3 Nonfinal 417 421 403 413 417 411 ndash ndash

194 H and L in Dutch rising contours

scales occupied the second and third positions respectively on the response sheets Theattention of the judges may well have slackened off after they had filled in the SURPRISE

scale which headed the list of three scales for each stimulus With hindsight it might havebeen better to present the stimuli separately for each response variable This would alsohave made it possible to include anchor stimuli as in Experiment 1 the omission of whichmay have contributed to the more erratic nature of the scores in Experiment 2

The aim of Experiment 2 was to find a response variable that depended on the pitchspan of the contour as conceived in the way outlined above and on the basis of these resultstherefore Experiment 3 can take as its starting point an appropriately refined hypothesiswith ldquoperceived surpriserdquo as the response variable Although it was not our purpose toestablish the full spectrum of attitudinal or emotional effects of different pitch range manip-ulations future research might well further explore the effects of pitch level and pitch spanin signaling of speaker attitudes and emotions

EXPERIMENT 3 PITTING L AGAINST H

Method

The purpose of Experiment 3 was to replicate the results obtained in Experiment 2 forSURPRISE and moreover to show that high rise contours analyzed as H H-H behave inthe same way as low rise contours for this dependent variable with the crucial exceptionthat lower beginnings of the high rise cause the utterance to express less surprise insteadof more as found for L in Experiment 2 To this end a different male speaker of Dutchrecorded the four sentences of Experiment 2 each spoken with an unemphatic weakly risingpitch accent on digital tape The durations were

1 Een nieuwe motor is te DUUR 1234ms

2 Je was al EERder bij hem geweest 1432ms

3 Is honderd gulden niet VEEL 1224ms

4 Zijn er niet MEER mensen op afgekomen 1608ms

Since the speech rate of these new utterances was some 20 faster than that of theutterances used for Experiment 1 the speech rate was left unchanged The F0 was artif i-cially manipulated with the help of the P-SOLA program made available in PRAAT Wedecided not to vary the F0 of H- in this test because the H H-H contours do not havea separate pitch target corresponding to H- and inclusion of this variable in the low risecontours would thus have introduced an imbalance in our experiment We used substan-tially higher values for H- and for the three steps for H as the old values produced asomewhat dull effect in these new utterances which we feared would have led to a crowdingof scores at the low end of the scale Table 4 gives the F0 values we used while diagram-matic representations of the stimuli are given in Figure 2

Since the variation in the F0 of the starred tone (3 steps) was crossed with the variationin the F0 of H (3 steps) there were nine stimuli for each source utterance The F0 of thepost-accentual mid-high level in the L H-H stimuli with nonfinal accent was heldconstant at 145 Hz Again in the corresponding stimuli with final accent there was nosuch mid level section F0 rising smoothly from the target of L to that of H The target

195C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

TABLE 4

F0 steps in Hz for L and H in final and nonfinal accented low rising contours and of H(H-)and H in final and nonfinal accented high rising contours used in Experiment 3

Accent location L H- H Nr of stimuli

Final 80 90 100 ndash 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 80 90 100 145 185 200 215 9

HH- H

Final 130 145 160 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 130 145 160 185 200 215 9

Figure 2

Diagrammatic representations of the stimuli used in Experiment 2 Nonfinal-accented L H-H is given in panel a final-accented L H-H in panel b nonfinal-accented H H-H inpanel c and final-accented H H-H in panel d

196 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for T began at one-tenth of the duration of the vowel after the CV boundary followingan 80ms rise in the case of H and a 20 ms fall in the case of L each starting at 100Hzthe end point of the prehead Except in the case of the final word duur the target of Lwas 80 ms long The target for H- after L and that of HH- (which have a single F0) ceased100ms before the target of H The end point of the final rise was located at the pointwhere the F0 reached a peak in the original contour which resulted in final voiced levelstretches varying from 0 (duur) to 70 ms (afgekomen) The target for L on duur lasted100 ms which left 80 ms for the final rise As before these values were arrived at on thebasis of the naturally spoken utterances and informal judgments of the naturalness of theartif icial contours

The total number of stimuli was 72 (2 contours acute 9 versions acute 4 sentences) We added24 fillers equally divided over the four source utterances with a variety of realization ofa L H L-H (ie a rising -falling -rising) contour This was done in order to increasethe intonational variety in the test These 96 items were randomized twice and each orderwas recorded onto digital tape preceded by ten practice stimuli of which the first eightwere identif ied as such in the instruction sheet and followed by two closing stimuli TheInter-Stimulus Interval was 45s The 108 stimuli (4 sentences acute 2 contours acute 9 versions=72 + 10 practice stimuli + 2 closing stimuli + 24 fillers) were presented in seven blocks of15 and one block of 3 Each block corresponded to a page on the answer sheet and waspreceded by a brief excerpt from a piano recital to give listeners an opportunity to relaxand turn the page The musical excerpt was followed by a 6 s pause and an anchor stimuluswhich was a pronunciation of the phrase Maal honderdTIEN ( lsquotimes a hundred -and -tenrsquo) produced by the same speaker who produced the source utterances realized with aL H L-H contour with a peak of 144 Hz and a low baseline of 110 Hz The degree ofsurprise realized in this anchor stimulus was said to lie exactly halfway on the scale InExperiment 1 we had an anchor stimulus before every stimulus This seemed to usunnecessary by the time we were designing Experiment 3 Pilot research without any anchorstimuli by Hedi Klein Tank had shown that for each page in the answer booklet the variancein the scores was positively correlated with serial position on the page It would appeartherefore that without anchors judges lose some of their orientation on the scale at theturn of each page Anchoring the scale at exactly those points in the test would thus seemto be the appropriate procedure

Two groups of subjects aged between 19 and 30 were recruited from the studentpopulation of Nijmegen one consisting of 15 and the other of 14 subjects The two tapeseach with a different random order of the stimuli were played at a comfortable volume vialoudspeakers to the two groups of subjects Judges were asked to rate the degree of surpriseexpressed by the intonation of each stimulus by placing a mark on a 100mm scale as inExperiment I They were paid a small fee

Results

Scores were obtained as for Experiment 1 An Analysis of Variance (repeated measures)was carried out to assess the influence of the independent variables on the scores Fourwithin -subject factors were included in the design ACCENT- LOCATION (early late)CONTOUR (L H-H vs H H-H) HEIGHT-OF-T (3 levels) and HEIGHT-OF-H (3 levels) In order to have an appropriate ratio between the number of independent

197C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

variables and the number of subjects scores were pooled over the four sentences nestedunder ACCENT- LOCATION Adopting a significance level of 05 we found the followingsignificant main effects CONTOUR F (128)= 1281 p= 001 HEIGHT-OF -TF(256)=5997 plt 001 and HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)=2603 plt 001 Two-way inter-actions were obtained for ACCENT- LOCATION CONTOUR F(256)= 6317 plt 001ACCENT- LOCATION acute HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)= 1187 plt001 and CONTOURacute HEIGHT-OF-T F (256)= 504 p=01 Where appropriate all significance levels wereHuynh-Feldt corrected

The important result here is the interaction between CONTOUR and HEIGHT-OF-T It indicates that raising the beginning of the rise does not have the same effect in thelow rise as it has in the high rise In order to assess the extent to which the scores variedas a function of the beginning of the rise in the L H-H and H H-H contours a trendanalysis (SPSS-MANOVA) was carried out on the data with a polynomial fitted consistingof a linear and a quadratic component An overall linear component as a function ofHEIGHT-OF-T was found to be significant F(128)= 7503 plt001 which interactedsignificantly with the factor CONTOUR F(128)= 810 p=008 The quadratic componentwas not significant

Figure 3 in which the scores for L and H are plotted for different levels of Hshows the crucial interaction graphically Data are pooled over four sentences In the toppanel we see that the lowest value (130 Hz) for H resulted in the lowest level of perceivedsurprise while the highest value (160Hz) expresses the highest degree In the bottom panelthe inverse relation is apparent for L Also the constant effect of H can be clearly seenin both contour types the degree of perceived surprise increases with increasing values ofH with only the stimuli combining L = 80 Hz and H= 185 Hz falling somewhat abovethe expected location

Discussion

The results of Experiment 3 replicate those obtained for perceived surprise in Experiment 2The conclusion must be that ldquohigh risesrdquo and ldquolow risesrdquo form separate phonological cate-gories in Dutch and moreover that ldquolow risesrdquo begin with L and ldquohigh risesrdquo begin withH We will return to this finding in the General Discussion

The effect of ACCENT- LOCATION and its significant interactions with CONTOURand HEIGHT-OF-H are of less interest The first interaction is due to the fact thatscores for the high rise are considerably higher for final accents than for nonfinal accentswhile those for the low rise are less affected by accent location and show a less extremebut opposite pattern Figure 4 presents the scores separately for final and nonfinal accents(pooled over two sentences) showing this interaction in nonfinal position high risingcontours convey less surprise than low- rising contours (panels (b) and (d)) while in finalposition this is not the case (cf panels (a) and (c)) Since the most striking data here arethe low scores for the high rise in nonfinal position this result can be explained by the factthat in these contours two relatively small F0- rises are divided over two syllables Bycontrast in the three other conditions the rises are either piled on top of each other (finalaccent) or the first of them is considerably larger (low rise on nonfinal accent) Lastly theinteraction between ACCENT- LOCATION and HEIGHT-OF-H is due to the greaterdifferentiation of the scores for H in final-accented rising stimuli as compared with those

198 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for the corresponding stimuli with nonfinal accents This effect visible in panels (a) and(c) versus (b) and (d) in Figure 4 is most probably to be explained on the basis of the greatersalience of H in rising contours that serve to accent final syllables

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In a series of experiments we investigated the behavior of Dutch rising nuclear contours asa function of changes in pitch range by asking listeners to rate such contours on perceivedattributes believed to be expressed through variations in pitch range Our interest in the firsttwo experiments was in the behavior of L which had been claimed to be lowered withincreasing pitch range The first attribute we investigated prominence (Experiment 1)showed that perceived prominence is not an appropriate response variable since listenersperceive prominence in terms of salient pitch characteristics in the accented syllablerather than of the entire contour as realized over a polysyllabic stretch of speech In effectthey ignored the beginning of the rising movement in contours with final accent and theend in contours with nonfinal accent Experiment 2 which was undertaken to see if oneor more of the attributes ldquosurpriserdquo ldquoinsistencerdquo and ldquoindignationrdquo was perceived as afunction of the entire contour showed that perceived surprise correlated with the pitchrange if pitch range is assumed to be increased by raising H-tones but lowering L Onthe basis of the results of Experiment 3 in which the L H-H contour was compared withthe H H-H contour we found that perceived surprise is higher as the end of the rising

(a)

Figure 3

Perceived surprise as a function of H andH (panel (a)) and L and H (panel (b))

(b)

199C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

contour is higher but that the effect of the beginning of the rising contour in the accentedsyllable depends on whether relative to the preceding pitch it begins low in which casegreater surprise is signaled by lower pitch or high in which case the opposite is true

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these findings First it may not be usefulto consider perceived prominence to be an interesting attribute of a nuclear contour like LH-H or of the nuclear accent L It is of course common to think about pitch accents asdiscrete elements which are either present or absent and to believe that when presentthey have some level of prominence or strength This ldquoaccent strengthrdquo is we like to thinka function of the pitch level and pitch span specifications of the contour (Gussenhoven etal 1997) but it would now appear that information about these specifications cannot alwaysbe obtained by asking listeners to rate syllables (accents words or phrases) for perceivedprominence since these judgments are strongly influenced by the contextually determinedshape of the pitch contour in the accented syllable such that final and nonfinal accentedsyllables may receive very different reactions even if the pitch targets are identical

Figure 4

Perceived surprise as a function of H and H (top panels) and of L and H (bottom panels)for stimuli with final accents (panels (a) and (c)) and nonfinal accents (panels (b) and (d))separately

200 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Second one way in which speakers can convey surprise in Dutch is by increasing thepitch range as conceived by Liberman -Pierrehumbert lowering L and raising H-tones(A caveat is in order for speaker gender our results are based on the evaluation of malespeech) There are reports however that suggest that L- tones go up when the pitch rangeis increased Erickson Honda Hirai Beckman and Niimi (1994) show that increased levelsof vocal effort (soft voice normal voice loud voice) correlate with F0 of L in English theloud voice has the highest L- tones These findings are not contradictory however if thedistinction between pitch level and pitch span (Ladd 1996 p 260) is observed Restrictingourselves to within -speaker variation the strategy of overall raising of the pitch level whichwould only appear to be possible for the whole contour should perhaps be associated withhigher levels of arousal As was observed in the Discussion for Experiment 2 indignationis possibly expressed in this way as can be concluded on the basis of our finding thathigher targets for L lead to higher perceived indignation in two of the three types of stimuliAlso ldquospeaking uprdquo may employ this type of variation as suggested by the results ofErickson et al (1994) where the overall pitch raising may be seen as due to the effort toproduce a signal that carries over a greater distance By contrast expansion of the pitchspan is more appropriate for increases in what we might call intonational ldquoexplicitnessrdquoto be used when expressing emphasis or surprise and possibly in utterances that serve ascorrections of earlier utterances that were misunderstood or to listeners who are (believedto be) hard of hearing

The third conclusion is most immediately related to the purpose of our experimentsThe results of Experiment 3 provide strong support for the phonological analysis of risesby Pierrehumbert (1980) who described the equivalent American English contours as LH -H (low rise) and H H- H (high rise) respectively In combination with theassumption made in Liberman and Pierrehumbert (1984) that L is lowered but H-tonesraised when the pitch range is increased that analysis accurately explains the resultsobtained That is L H H and H H-H are categorically distinct contours of DutchThe alternative interpretation by which the contours corresponding to these transcriptionsform a single phonological class and represent different realizations varying merely ingradient pitch range must be excluded If our stimuli represented different realizations ofthe same phonological contour we would have expected the phonetic variation from highto low pitch in the accented syllable to have a uniform effect on the perception of the gradientattribute ldquosurpriserdquo

We must be careful to restrict our hypothesis that increased pitch span is achieved bylowering F0 to starred L- tones in Dutch Other L- tones may not behave in the same wayIndeed Fant and Kruckenberg (1994) found for Swedish that greater emphasis causes thelow F0 of Accent 2 to be lower but the low F0 for Accent 1 as well as all other targets tobe higher suggesting that not all L- tones are treated alike As observed by Ladd(forthcoming) the standard analysis (eg Bruce 1990) which analyzes Accent 1 as HLand Accent 2 as HL does not predict this result since one would sooner expect the L ofAccent 1 than the unstarred L- tone of Accent 2 to define the lower boundary of the pitchspan and thus be lowered with increased emphasis

Because the terms ldquohigh riserdquo and ldquolow riserdquo have been used in slightly differentmeanings we should be careful to prevent our results from being generalized to other distinc-tions In descriptions of British English ldquohigh risesrdquo are usually distinguished from ldquolow

201C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

risesrdquo on the basis of the end point For instance Halliday (1970) and OrsquoConnor and Arnold(1973) identify a rise from midlow to high (the ldquohigh riserdquo) as well as one from low tomidlow (the ldquolow riserdquo) Tench (1996) distinguishes low neutral and high rises on thebasis of the end point Crystal (1969) distinguishes three beginning points (high mediumlow) and three excursion sizes (wide normal narrow) to give nine categorically differentrises We believe that the rises described by these authors are versions of the L H-(H)contour with different pitch ranges Indeed the spoken illustrations accompanyingHalliday (1970) sound like such contours although the high rise is described as having amidlow beginning Cruttenden (1997 pp 51ndash 52) recognizes a (British) ldquolow riserdquo (ielow- range L L- H) as a category distinct from H H-H but suggests that wide-range L H-H and H H-H should be seen as a single category He also suggests thatH H-H is frequent in General American but has a low frequency of occurrence in BritishEnglish where the (British) ldquolow riserdquo tends to be used instead (see also 1997 pp 88 99)Cruttenden (1995) points out that utterance -final rises are on the increase in SouthernBritish speech among which there may well be ldquohigh risesrdquo (see also House 1998)

The description of Dutch intonation offered in rsquot Hart et al (1990) which makes nodistinction between the ldquohigh riserdquo and the ldquolow riserdquo could be modified so as to allow thecombination ldquo3rdquo (a late accent-lending rise) with ldquo2rdquo (equivalent to H) instead of justwith ldquoCrdquo (a nonaccent-lending fall) The combination ldquo32rdquo would then correspond to theldquolow riserdquo while ldquo12rdquo would represent only the ldquohigh riserdquo The description of Gussenhoven(1988 1991) which produces on a contour inventory based on phonological variations onthree basic pitch accents without ever producing a contour like the ldquohigh riserdquo should beaugmented with the contour H H which transcription adequately describes the two targetsof the ldquohigh riserdquo (see also Footnote 1)

Finally a more general conclusion In Experiment 3 we have seen how an investi-gation of the perceptual effects of pitch range led to a confirmation of a particular tonalanalysis of rising intonations This illustrates the importance of basing our data on as widea range of observations as possible The consideration of pitch range variation appears notonly to be relevant for studying models of phonetic implementation (cf Liberman ampPierrehumbert 1984) but also for models of phonological structure Indeed GrabeGussenhoven Haan Marsi and Post (1997) illustrates how studying the perception ofspeaker attitudes can lead to meaningful conclusions about intonational structure Theincreased interest for intonational meaning that seems to be detectable in experimentalresearch may therefore well lead to an improved understanding of morphology andphonology of intonation

Received January 18 1999 revised manuscript received September 22 1999 accepted December 6 1999

202 H and L in Dutch rising contours

REFERENCES

BARD E G ROBERTSON D amp SORACE A (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic accept-ability Language 72 32ndash68

BECKMAN M amp PIERREHUMBERT J B (1986) Intonational structure in English and JapanesePhonological Yearbook 3 255ndash310

BOERSMA P amp WEENINK D lthttpfonsg3letuvanlpraatgtBRUCE G (1990) Alignment and composition of tonal accents Comments on Silverman and

Pierrehumbertrsquos paper In J Kingston amp M Beckman (Eds) Papers in laboratory phonologyBetween the grammar and physics of speech (pp107ndash 114) Cambridge UK CambridgeUniversity Press

COLLIER R amp rsquot HART J (1980) Cursus Nederlandse IntonateLouvain AccoCOLLINS B amp MEES I (1981) The sounds of English The Hague Leiden University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1997) Intonation (2nd ed) Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1995) Rises in English In J Windsor Lewis (Ed) Studies in general and English

phonetics (pp155ndash173) London RoutledgeCRYSTAL D (1969) Prosodic systems and intonation in English Cambridge UK Cambridge

University PressERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H BECKMAN M E amp NIIMI S (1994) Global pitch range

and the production of low tones in English intonation International Conference on the Processingof Spoken Language 3 651ndash654

ERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H amp BECKMAN M E (1996) The production of low tonesin English intonation Journal of Phonetics 23 179ndash188

FANT G amp KRUCKENBERG A (1994) Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish SpeedTransmission Laboratorymdash Quarterly Status and Progress Report 2ndash 3 (pp125ndash 144) Alsopublished in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody 1994 Yokohama Japan

GRABE E GUSSENHOVEN C HAAN J MARSI E amp POST B (1997) Preaccentual pitch andspeaker attitude in Dutch Language and Speech 41 63ndash85

GUSSENHOVEN C (1988) Adequacy in intonation analysis The case of Dutch In H van der Hulstamp N Smith (Eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology (pp95ndash121) DordrechtForis

GUSSENHOVEN C (1991) Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch In T F Shannon amp J P Snapper(Eds) The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp139ndash 155) Lanham MDUniversity Press of America

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1988) Fundamental frequency declination in DutchTesting three hypotheses Journal of Phonetics 16 355ndash369

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1991) An experimental evaluation of two nuclear tonetaxonomies Linguistics 29 423ndash449

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1992) A target-interpolation model for the intonation of DutchICSLP2 (pp1235ndash1238)

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1997) Empirical evidence for the contrast between L andH in Dutch rising contours In A Botinis G Kouroupetroglou amp G Caryannis (Eds) Inton-ation Theory models and application Proceedings of ESCA workshop (pp169ndash172) AthensESCA and University of Athens

GUSSENHOVEN C REPP B H RIETVELD T RUMP H H amp TERKEN J (1997) The perceptualprominence of fundamental frequency peaks Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1023009ndash3022

HALLIDAY M A K (1970) IntonationLondon Oxford University Pressrsquot HART J COLLIER R amp COHEN A (1990) A perceptual study of intonation An experimental

phonetic approach Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressHOUSE J (1998) Review of Tench (1996) English Language and Linguistics 2 137ndash139

188 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Ladd (1999) who find that ldquodeepness of the voicerdquo correlates with variation in pitch levelmeasures while for instance ldquoexpressivenessrdquo and ldquoemphasisrdquo correlate with pitch spanmeasures Our research question concerns perceptual attributes that correlate with variationsin pitch span rather than pitch level since we aim to show that increases in pitch spanlower the values corresponding to L targets while raising H-tones Promising attributeswould seem to be ldquoexpressivenessrdquo ldquolivelinessrdquo and ldquoinsistencerdquo

In fact finding the right perceptual attribute proved more difficult than expectedOur first choice was perceived prominence in L H-H contours This attribute has widelybeen shown to be an auditory correlate of pitch range in contours with an accentual peakThe results of this first attempt reported in the main part of this article as Experiment 1led us to reject perceived prominence as a response variable as listeners appeared to interprettheir task in a ldquolocalrdquo sense The results suggest that judges paid attention to the extent towhich the pitch movements were located in the accented syllable since they judgedutterance -final accented syllables very differently from nonfinal ones In particular whilethe endpoint of the rise (the realization of H) had a clear effect on perceived prominenceif the accented syllable was utterance - final (and the rising contour thus ended inside thatsyllable) it had no effect if the accented syllable was nonfinal (and the endpoint of the risewas located outside the accented syllable) Conversely the starting point of the rise thetarget of L only had an effect if the accented syllable was nonfinal Here the pitch hasonly just begun to rise at the end of the syllable causing the low beginning to be more salientcompared to the low beginning in final accented syllables where the high endpoint is locatedinside the same syllable masking the salience of the low beginning The prominencejudgments thus appeared to reflect phonetic salience of the pitch contour in accentedsyllables rather than contour-wide pitch span Arguably ldquoprominentrdquo may not be apragmatic or emotional attribute of linguistic utterances like ldquoangryrdquo ldquoinsistentrdquoldquoplacatingrdquo and so forth and it may be better to regard it as an attribute of the speech signallike ldquocoarserdquo ldquoloudrdquo and ldquomelodiousrdquo Our next attempt was to try out a number of moreevidently message-oriented attributes In Experiment 2 we investigated the perceivedindignation the perceived surprise and the perceived insistence of low rising contours asa function of the same phonetic variation as in Experiment 1

Out of three potential attributes investigated in Experiment 2 we hoped that at leastone behaved in the way that might allow us to test our hypothesis It is important to see thatthe failure of most of the perceptual attributes that we investigated failed to show increaseswith decreased F0 for L does not make our subsequent research results less interestingor less reliable First our aim was not to investigate the pragmatic correlates of pitch spanwe are purely interested in showing that low rises and high rises behave differently insome condition so as to have evidence that they are in fact different Second whateverattribute we were to identify in Experiment 2 the effect is to be demonstrated in a thirdindependent Experiment 3 in which the behavior of the low rise and the high rise couldbe compared Experiment 2 showed that perceived surprise had the effect on L we werelooking for and the results of Experiment 3 showed very clearly that listeners perceivelower beginnings of the low rise but higher beginnings of the high rise as conveying moresurprise The three experiments are reported in the next three sections A final sectionprovides a general conclusion

189C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

EXPERIMENT 1 THE PROMINENCE OF L H-H

Method

The purpose of Experiment 1 was to establish how variations in the F0 of L H- and Haffect the perceived prominence on accented words realized with a L H-H contour Weincluded both stimuli with the accented syllable in final position where L H- and Hare realized on the same syllable and stimuli with the accent in nonfinal position inwhich the targets of L and H- occur in or near the accented syllable but that of H appearson the final syllable All stimuli were manipulated versions of two utterances which hadone accented syllable printed in capitals below and which were originally spoken by a malenative speaker of standard Dutch with a weakly rising pitch accent on the capitalized wordsThe utterance durations were 1577 ms and 1716ms respectively

1 Een nieuwe motor is te DUURlsquoA new engine is too expensiversquo

2 Je was al EERder bij hem geweestlsquoYou had been to see him beforersquo

The stimuli were generated using the PSOLA-technique as included in the speechpackage PRAAT developed at the University of Amsterdam (Boersma amp Weenink) TheF0 of L H- and H was varied in three steps In stimuli with final accented syllables(cf the first utterance above) the F0 of H- was not included as a variable since its targetis located on the rising slope and does not constitute a separate acoustic event Crossingthe three steps led to nine stimuli (Set 1 see Table 1) In the stimuli with a nonfinal accent(cf the second utterance above) the three steps for L were combined with each of thethree steps for H- and each of those for H resulting in two sets of nine stimuli (Sets 2and 3 see Table 1) Contours began at 100Hz fell during 20ms to the value for L whichstarted at one- tenth of the vowel duration after the CV boundary and was held for 150 msIn the stimuli with nonfinal accent a 120ms rise to the value of H- was followed by a levelstretch a final rise of 100ms to the value of H followed by a 100ms level stretch In thestimuli with final accent the value for L was followed by a rise of 120 ms to the value forH These specifications were in part modeled on pronunciations of the sentences by thesame speaker and in part on trial and error Before creating the artif icial contours weincreased the articulation rate by multiplying the duration of all frames in the original speechfiles by 085 which appeared to us to improve the naturalness of the stimuli

Each set of nine stimuli was randomized six times resulting in 18 blocks of ninestimuli These were divided into two sets of nine blocks and each set was recorded onto aTK50 audiotape Each of the nine blocks was preceded by a 750ms warning signal corre-sponding to a new page of the response booklet Each stimulus was preceded by an anchorstimulus produced from the same original speech file as the test stimulus This anchorstimulus had an artificial L H L- L contour that is a rising- falling contour with apeak of 150 Hz on the syllable that carried the accent in the following test stimulus Thustwo different anchors one with a final and one with a nonfinal accent were included onthe tapes The interval between the anchor stimulus and the test stimulus was 2 s and thatbetween a test stimulus and the anchor stimulus of the next item was 55 s In additioneach tape began with 12 practice stimuli The total test duration was approximately 15 mins

190 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Two groups of 15 listeners were recruited from the student population of the Universityof Nijmegen approximately equally divided over both sexes with ages ranging between 19and 28 Each group of subjects was asked to listen to one of the tapes mdash each tape had adifferent random order of the stimuli mdash and to indicate the degree of ldquoEMPHASISrdquo with which the accented word in each stimulus was spoken by placing a tick across a 10 cmlong line which was uncalibrated except for a mark placed exactly in the middle Thisprocedure is similar to that known as ldquoline productionrdquo (Lodge 1981) a form of magnitudeestimation (cf Bard Robertson amp Sorace 1996) Each scale was labeled ldquolittle emphasisrdquoon the left and ldquomuch emphasisrdquo on the right4 In the response booklets the accentedword (eerder or duur) was printed to the left of each scale In the instruction judges weretold that the level of emphasis of the corresponding word in the anchor stimulus representeda position halfway down the scale as indicated by the midway calibration mark This enabledthem to relate their judgments to this value

Results

Scores were obtained by measuring the distances in millimeters from the beginning ofeach line to the marks placed by the judges There were no missing data Separate Analysesof Variance for each stimulus set were carried out (repeated measures only Huynh-Feldtcorrected significance levels are reported cf Rietveld amp van Hout 1993) Within - factorsfor Sets 1 and 2 were the scores for L and H and for Set 3 those for L and H- Theresults showed a significant effect of H in Set 1 F (258)= 744 plt01 and significanteffects of L in Sets 2 and 3 F (258)= 647 plt05 and F(258)= 1629 plt01 respec-tively There were no significant interactions In other words in final accented syllablesonly the end point has an effect on the perceived prominence while for nonfinal accentedsyllables both in combination with a varying H- and in combination with a varying Honly the beginning point has an effect on the perceived prominence In both cases the effectsconfirm the hypothesis that lower realizations of L and higher realizations of H lead togreater perceived prominence (cf Table 2)

Conclusion

Experiment 1 was only partly successful It showed that L behaved in the expected mannerwith lower values eliciting higher prominence judgments but also that judges paid noattention to its target in f inal position while conversely H elicited the expected

TABLE 1

F0 steps in Hz of L H- and H in three sets of stimuli

Accent location L H- H Nr of stimuli

Set 1 Final 80 90 100 ndash 140 150 160 9 Set 2 Nonfinal 80 90 100 130 140 150 160 9 Set 3 Nonfinal 80 90 100 120 130 140 150 9

4 In the original Dutch text the word nadruk was used for ldquoemphasisrdquo

191C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

prominence judgments only when the accent was located on a final syllable A possibleexplanation of these results would focus on the perceived prominence as the dependentvariable prominence may be interpreted locally and judgments may be triggered by themost salient feature in the accented syllable In the case of prominence judgments madeon the basis of L H L- L contours the cue provided by the height of the peak argu-ably the most salient feature is judged more consistently (barring the effect of the contourrsquosbeginning pitch which may determine the perception of the pitch range and barring theeffect of declination which causes later peaks to have less prominence and lower pitch(Gussenhoven et al 1997 Pierrehumbert 1979)) since the starting point of the rise andthe end point of the fall both happen to be in or near the accented syllable regardless ofthe location of the accent It seemed better therefore to look for a dependent variable whichis signaled by means of variations in pitch range but which listeners might respond to ina way that does not draw their attention to the physical shape of the contour Experiment 2was undertaken to find such a response variable

EXPERIMENT 2 LOOKING FOR A NEW RESPONSE VARIABLE

Method

The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the effect of variation in the F0 of LH- and H on the perception of a number of attributes which we hypothesized dependedon pitch range variation Basing ourselves on intuition we selected three attributes SURPRISEINSISTENCE and INDIGNATION Again our hypothesis was that for each of these attributeslower values of L and higher values of H- and H would result in higher scores Becauseour materials in Experiment 1 were somewhat limited both in the number of sourceutterances (two) and in syntactic structure (both were syntactic declaratives) we augmentedthe old stimuli with a new set based on two new utterances representing syntactic questionsspoken by the same speaker These utterances were provided with artif icial intonationcontours and overall speech rate following the same specifications as in Experiment 1 (seeTable 1) The new source utterances were pronunciations of sentences [3] and [4] belowwhich had durations of 1027 ms and 1492ms respectively

3 Is honderd gulden niet VEELlsquoIsnrsquot a hundred guilders a lotrsquo

TABLE 2

Mean prominence scores for each F0 step listed in order of increasing F0 in three stimulus setsSignificant factors are listed in the last column

L H- H

Targets in HzAccent location 80 90 100 120 130 140 140 150 160 plt05

Set 1 Final 532 541 504 ndash 510 525 541 H Set 2 Nonfinal 612 572 526 ndash 569 574 564 L Set 3 Nonfinal 632 604 568 626 597 582 ndash L

192 H and L in Dutch rising contours

4 Zijn er niet MEER mensen op afgekomenlsquoHavenrsquot more people comersquo

We prepared four test tapes Two of these contained the stimuli used in Experiment 1Sets 1 2 and 3 based on utterances 1 and 2 totaling 9 (stimuli per set) acute 3 (sets) or 27stimuli These 27 stimuli were randomized four times and recorded onto two digital tapessuch that each tape contained 54 test stimuli These were preceded on each tape by a set ofseven practice stimuli and followed by two filler stimuli so that the resulting 63 (ie 54+2+ 7) stimuli per tape could be blocked in nine groups of seven A block began with a 750mswarning signal followed by a 3s pause corresponding to a new page of the response bookletEach stimulus was presented three times with two 2 s intervals followed by a 6s pause Inthe same way two tapes were prepared that contained the stimuli based on utterances 3and 4 The total duration of each test tape was 13mins

The response booklets gave three scales for each stimulus each printed as ahyphenated series of numerals from 1 to 105 Each of the three scales was preceded by oneof the following descriptions always in this order6

yen the speaker expresses his surpriseyen the speaker insists on receiving an answer yen the speaker vents his indignation

Thirty-two judges whose ages ranged from 19 to 32 and who were equally dividedover both sexes were recruited among students and staff of the University of NijmegenThey were split into four groups of eight divided four-four or three- five over the two sexesThey were paid a small fee The four tapes were played to the four groups of judges overheadphones in a language laboratory They were instructed to judge the extent to whicheach stimulus conveyed the meanings given in the labels by circling one of the numeralsmaking up the corresponding scale Judges were encouraged to time the recording of theirjudgments in tune with the repetitions of each stimulus and to try and use the full rangeof the scales

Results

There were three missing data points which were supplied by taking the median of thescores for the item concerned within the group of eight judges Raw scores obtained in thefour tests were pooled For each of the three response categories separate Analyses ofVariance for each of the three stimulus sets were carried out (repeated measures onlyHuynh-Feldt corrected significance levels are reported) Within - factors for sets 1 and 2were the scores for L and H and for set 3 those for L and H- In the case of SURPRISEsignificant effects for L and H were observed in all cases (L set 1 F(262)= 1483plt001 L set 2 F(262)= 1963 plt001 L set 3 F(262)= 775 p=002 H set 1F(262)= 1126 plt001 H set 2 F(262)= 2165 plt001 but the scores for H- in set 3

5 It was felt that the transfer of scores from three uncalibrated scales might be unreasonably time-consuming and possibly error-prone which is the reason we opted for the 10-points scales

6 The Dutch labels were respectively ldquoDe spreker drukt zijn verbazing uitrdquo ldquoDe spreker dringtaan op een antwoordrdquo and ldquoDe spreker geeft blijk van verontwaardigingrdquo

193C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

were not significant In the case of the response variable INSISTENCE there was a significanteffect for H in set 1 the set with final accent (H set 1 F(262)=764 plt01) In the datafor INDIGNATION the factor L was significant in set 2 the set with nonfinal accent withvariable H (L set 2 F(262)= 574 plt01) There were no significant interactions Table3 lists mean scores per F0 variable separately for each stimulus set for the three responsevariables Significant factors are listed in the last column

Conclusion

The results of Experiment 2 suggest that the attributes INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION are notperceived in accordance with the hypothesis that these dependent variables correlate withvariations in pitch range whereby pitch range can be increased by lowering L and raisingH- and H In fact the scores for the significant factor L in set 1 for INDIGNATION showa pattern which is the inverse of what we had expected to find in these data increasedperceived Indignation corresponding to higher values for L This result would appear toconfirm the conclusion of Mozziconacci (1998 p 121) that INDIGNATION is a perceptualattribute of ldquo12rdquo (in IPO-notation) that is H H-H contours with high pitch level andlarge pitch ranges The positive correlation between the F0 of L and perceived indignationmay point to a different type of manipulation of the pitch range in indignant speech thanin surprised speech Indignant speech may be cued by raising what Ladd (1996) calls theoverall pitch level instead of the pitch span

In contrast to the results for INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION the attribute SURPRISE

produced scores which were consistently in agreement with our hypothesis It is possiblethat the poor results for INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION were in part due the fact that these

TABLE 3

Mean SURPRISE INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION scores for each F0 step listed in order of increas-ing F0 in three stimulus sets

L H- H

Target in Hz Accent location 80 90 100 120 130 140 140 150 160 plt05

SurpriseSet 1 Final 537 468 426 ndash 426 484 521 L HSet 2 Nonfinal 559 525 445 ndash 447 518 563 L HSet 3 Nonfinal 625 590 570 563 574 648 ndash L

InsistenceSet 1 Final 545 538 537 ndash 528 510 582 ndashSet 2 Nonfinal 615 617 655 ndash 620 626 641 HSet 3 Nonfinal 616 625 627 622 623 623 ndash ndash

IndignationSet 1 Final 465 482 506 ndash 482 498 473 ndashSet 2 Nonfinal 432 468 512 ndash 500 458 455 LSet 3 Nonfinal 417 421 403 413 417 411 ndash ndash

194 H and L in Dutch rising contours

scales occupied the second and third positions respectively on the response sheets Theattention of the judges may well have slackened off after they had filled in the SURPRISE

scale which headed the list of three scales for each stimulus With hindsight it might havebeen better to present the stimuli separately for each response variable This would alsohave made it possible to include anchor stimuli as in Experiment 1 the omission of whichmay have contributed to the more erratic nature of the scores in Experiment 2

The aim of Experiment 2 was to find a response variable that depended on the pitchspan of the contour as conceived in the way outlined above and on the basis of these resultstherefore Experiment 3 can take as its starting point an appropriately refined hypothesiswith ldquoperceived surpriserdquo as the response variable Although it was not our purpose toestablish the full spectrum of attitudinal or emotional effects of different pitch range manip-ulations future research might well further explore the effects of pitch level and pitch spanin signaling of speaker attitudes and emotions

EXPERIMENT 3 PITTING L AGAINST H

Method

The purpose of Experiment 3 was to replicate the results obtained in Experiment 2 forSURPRISE and moreover to show that high rise contours analyzed as H H-H behave inthe same way as low rise contours for this dependent variable with the crucial exceptionthat lower beginnings of the high rise cause the utterance to express less surprise insteadof more as found for L in Experiment 2 To this end a different male speaker of Dutchrecorded the four sentences of Experiment 2 each spoken with an unemphatic weakly risingpitch accent on digital tape The durations were

1 Een nieuwe motor is te DUUR 1234ms

2 Je was al EERder bij hem geweest 1432ms

3 Is honderd gulden niet VEEL 1224ms

4 Zijn er niet MEER mensen op afgekomen 1608ms

Since the speech rate of these new utterances was some 20 faster than that of theutterances used for Experiment 1 the speech rate was left unchanged The F0 was artif i-cially manipulated with the help of the P-SOLA program made available in PRAAT Wedecided not to vary the F0 of H- in this test because the H H-H contours do not havea separate pitch target corresponding to H- and inclusion of this variable in the low risecontours would thus have introduced an imbalance in our experiment We used substan-tially higher values for H- and for the three steps for H as the old values produced asomewhat dull effect in these new utterances which we feared would have led to a crowdingof scores at the low end of the scale Table 4 gives the F0 values we used while diagram-matic representations of the stimuli are given in Figure 2

Since the variation in the F0 of the starred tone (3 steps) was crossed with the variationin the F0 of H (3 steps) there were nine stimuli for each source utterance The F0 of thepost-accentual mid-high level in the L H-H stimuli with nonfinal accent was heldconstant at 145 Hz Again in the corresponding stimuli with final accent there was nosuch mid level section F0 rising smoothly from the target of L to that of H The target

195C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

TABLE 4

F0 steps in Hz for L and H in final and nonfinal accented low rising contours and of H(H-)and H in final and nonfinal accented high rising contours used in Experiment 3

Accent location L H- H Nr of stimuli

Final 80 90 100 ndash 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 80 90 100 145 185 200 215 9

HH- H

Final 130 145 160 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 130 145 160 185 200 215 9

Figure 2

Diagrammatic representations of the stimuli used in Experiment 2 Nonfinal-accented L H-H is given in panel a final-accented L H-H in panel b nonfinal-accented H H-H inpanel c and final-accented H H-H in panel d

196 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for T began at one-tenth of the duration of the vowel after the CV boundary followingan 80ms rise in the case of H and a 20 ms fall in the case of L each starting at 100Hzthe end point of the prehead Except in the case of the final word duur the target of Lwas 80 ms long The target for H- after L and that of HH- (which have a single F0) ceased100ms before the target of H The end point of the final rise was located at the pointwhere the F0 reached a peak in the original contour which resulted in final voiced levelstretches varying from 0 (duur) to 70 ms (afgekomen) The target for L on duur lasted100 ms which left 80 ms for the final rise As before these values were arrived at on thebasis of the naturally spoken utterances and informal judgments of the naturalness of theartif icial contours

The total number of stimuli was 72 (2 contours acute 9 versions acute 4 sentences) We added24 fillers equally divided over the four source utterances with a variety of realization ofa L H L-H (ie a rising -falling -rising) contour This was done in order to increasethe intonational variety in the test These 96 items were randomized twice and each orderwas recorded onto digital tape preceded by ten practice stimuli of which the first eightwere identif ied as such in the instruction sheet and followed by two closing stimuli TheInter-Stimulus Interval was 45s The 108 stimuli (4 sentences acute 2 contours acute 9 versions=72 + 10 practice stimuli + 2 closing stimuli + 24 fillers) were presented in seven blocks of15 and one block of 3 Each block corresponded to a page on the answer sheet and waspreceded by a brief excerpt from a piano recital to give listeners an opportunity to relaxand turn the page The musical excerpt was followed by a 6 s pause and an anchor stimuluswhich was a pronunciation of the phrase Maal honderdTIEN ( lsquotimes a hundred -and -tenrsquo) produced by the same speaker who produced the source utterances realized with aL H L-H contour with a peak of 144 Hz and a low baseline of 110 Hz The degree ofsurprise realized in this anchor stimulus was said to lie exactly halfway on the scale InExperiment 1 we had an anchor stimulus before every stimulus This seemed to usunnecessary by the time we were designing Experiment 3 Pilot research without any anchorstimuli by Hedi Klein Tank had shown that for each page in the answer booklet the variancein the scores was positively correlated with serial position on the page It would appeartherefore that without anchors judges lose some of their orientation on the scale at theturn of each page Anchoring the scale at exactly those points in the test would thus seemto be the appropriate procedure

Two groups of subjects aged between 19 and 30 were recruited from the studentpopulation of Nijmegen one consisting of 15 and the other of 14 subjects The two tapeseach with a different random order of the stimuli were played at a comfortable volume vialoudspeakers to the two groups of subjects Judges were asked to rate the degree of surpriseexpressed by the intonation of each stimulus by placing a mark on a 100mm scale as inExperiment I They were paid a small fee

Results

Scores were obtained as for Experiment 1 An Analysis of Variance (repeated measures)was carried out to assess the influence of the independent variables on the scores Fourwithin -subject factors were included in the design ACCENT- LOCATION (early late)CONTOUR (L H-H vs H H-H) HEIGHT-OF-T (3 levels) and HEIGHT-OF-H (3 levels) In order to have an appropriate ratio between the number of independent

197C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

variables and the number of subjects scores were pooled over the four sentences nestedunder ACCENT- LOCATION Adopting a significance level of 05 we found the followingsignificant main effects CONTOUR F (128)= 1281 p= 001 HEIGHT-OF -TF(256)=5997 plt 001 and HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)=2603 plt 001 Two-way inter-actions were obtained for ACCENT- LOCATION CONTOUR F(256)= 6317 plt 001ACCENT- LOCATION acute HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)= 1187 plt001 and CONTOURacute HEIGHT-OF-T F (256)= 504 p=01 Where appropriate all significance levels wereHuynh-Feldt corrected

The important result here is the interaction between CONTOUR and HEIGHT-OF-T It indicates that raising the beginning of the rise does not have the same effect in thelow rise as it has in the high rise In order to assess the extent to which the scores variedas a function of the beginning of the rise in the L H-H and H H-H contours a trendanalysis (SPSS-MANOVA) was carried out on the data with a polynomial fitted consistingof a linear and a quadratic component An overall linear component as a function ofHEIGHT-OF-T was found to be significant F(128)= 7503 plt001 which interactedsignificantly with the factor CONTOUR F(128)= 810 p=008 The quadratic componentwas not significant

Figure 3 in which the scores for L and H are plotted for different levels of Hshows the crucial interaction graphically Data are pooled over four sentences In the toppanel we see that the lowest value (130 Hz) for H resulted in the lowest level of perceivedsurprise while the highest value (160Hz) expresses the highest degree In the bottom panelthe inverse relation is apparent for L Also the constant effect of H can be clearly seenin both contour types the degree of perceived surprise increases with increasing values ofH with only the stimuli combining L = 80 Hz and H= 185 Hz falling somewhat abovethe expected location

Discussion

The results of Experiment 3 replicate those obtained for perceived surprise in Experiment 2The conclusion must be that ldquohigh risesrdquo and ldquolow risesrdquo form separate phonological cate-gories in Dutch and moreover that ldquolow risesrdquo begin with L and ldquohigh risesrdquo begin withH We will return to this finding in the General Discussion

The effect of ACCENT- LOCATION and its significant interactions with CONTOURand HEIGHT-OF-H are of less interest The first interaction is due to the fact thatscores for the high rise are considerably higher for final accents than for nonfinal accentswhile those for the low rise are less affected by accent location and show a less extremebut opposite pattern Figure 4 presents the scores separately for final and nonfinal accents(pooled over two sentences) showing this interaction in nonfinal position high risingcontours convey less surprise than low- rising contours (panels (b) and (d)) while in finalposition this is not the case (cf panels (a) and (c)) Since the most striking data here arethe low scores for the high rise in nonfinal position this result can be explained by the factthat in these contours two relatively small F0- rises are divided over two syllables Bycontrast in the three other conditions the rises are either piled on top of each other (finalaccent) or the first of them is considerably larger (low rise on nonfinal accent) Lastly theinteraction between ACCENT- LOCATION and HEIGHT-OF-H is due to the greaterdifferentiation of the scores for H in final-accented rising stimuli as compared with those

198 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for the corresponding stimuli with nonfinal accents This effect visible in panels (a) and(c) versus (b) and (d) in Figure 4 is most probably to be explained on the basis of the greatersalience of H in rising contours that serve to accent final syllables

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In a series of experiments we investigated the behavior of Dutch rising nuclear contours asa function of changes in pitch range by asking listeners to rate such contours on perceivedattributes believed to be expressed through variations in pitch range Our interest in the firsttwo experiments was in the behavior of L which had been claimed to be lowered withincreasing pitch range The first attribute we investigated prominence (Experiment 1)showed that perceived prominence is not an appropriate response variable since listenersperceive prominence in terms of salient pitch characteristics in the accented syllablerather than of the entire contour as realized over a polysyllabic stretch of speech In effectthey ignored the beginning of the rising movement in contours with final accent and theend in contours with nonfinal accent Experiment 2 which was undertaken to see if oneor more of the attributes ldquosurpriserdquo ldquoinsistencerdquo and ldquoindignationrdquo was perceived as afunction of the entire contour showed that perceived surprise correlated with the pitchrange if pitch range is assumed to be increased by raising H-tones but lowering L Onthe basis of the results of Experiment 3 in which the L H-H contour was compared withthe H H-H contour we found that perceived surprise is higher as the end of the rising

(a)

Figure 3

Perceived surprise as a function of H andH (panel (a)) and L and H (panel (b))

(b)

199C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

contour is higher but that the effect of the beginning of the rising contour in the accentedsyllable depends on whether relative to the preceding pitch it begins low in which casegreater surprise is signaled by lower pitch or high in which case the opposite is true

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these findings First it may not be usefulto consider perceived prominence to be an interesting attribute of a nuclear contour like LH-H or of the nuclear accent L It is of course common to think about pitch accents asdiscrete elements which are either present or absent and to believe that when presentthey have some level of prominence or strength This ldquoaccent strengthrdquo is we like to thinka function of the pitch level and pitch span specifications of the contour (Gussenhoven etal 1997) but it would now appear that information about these specifications cannot alwaysbe obtained by asking listeners to rate syllables (accents words or phrases) for perceivedprominence since these judgments are strongly influenced by the contextually determinedshape of the pitch contour in the accented syllable such that final and nonfinal accentedsyllables may receive very different reactions even if the pitch targets are identical

Figure 4

Perceived surprise as a function of H and H (top panels) and of L and H (bottom panels)for stimuli with final accents (panels (a) and (c)) and nonfinal accents (panels (b) and (d))separately

200 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Second one way in which speakers can convey surprise in Dutch is by increasing thepitch range as conceived by Liberman -Pierrehumbert lowering L and raising H-tones(A caveat is in order for speaker gender our results are based on the evaluation of malespeech) There are reports however that suggest that L- tones go up when the pitch rangeis increased Erickson Honda Hirai Beckman and Niimi (1994) show that increased levelsof vocal effort (soft voice normal voice loud voice) correlate with F0 of L in English theloud voice has the highest L- tones These findings are not contradictory however if thedistinction between pitch level and pitch span (Ladd 1996 p 260) is observed Restrictingourselves to within -speaker variation the strategy of overall raising of the pitch level whichwould only appear to be possible for the whole contour should perhaps be associated withhigher levels of arousal As was observed in the Discussion for Experiment 2 indignationis possibly expressed in this way as can be concluded on the basis of our finding thathigher targets for L lead to higher perceived indignation in two of the three types of stimuliAlso ldquospeaking uprdquo may employ this type of variation as suggested by the results ofErickson et al (1994) where the overall pitch raising may be seen as due to the effort toproduce a signal that carries over a greater distance By contrast expansion of the pitchspan is more appropriate for increases in what we might call intonational ldquoexplicitnessrdquoto be used when expressing emphasis or surprise and possibly in utterances that serve ascorrections of earlier utterances that were misunderstood or to listeners who are (believedto be) hard of hearing

The third conclusion is most immediately related to the purpose of our experimentsThe results of Experiment 3 provide strong support for the phonological analysis of risesby Pierrehumbert (1980) who described the equivalent American English contours as LH -H (low rise) and H H- H (high rise) respectively In combination with theassumption made in Liberman and Pierrehumbert (1984) that L is lowered but H-tonesraised when the pitch range is increased that analysis accurately explains the resultsobtained That is L H H and H H-H are categorically distinct contours of DutchThe alternative interpretation by which the contours corresponding to these transcriptionsform a single phonological class and represent different realizations varying merely ingradient pitch range must be excluded If our stimuli represented different realizations ofthe same phonological contour we would have expected the phonetic variation from highto low pitch in the accented syllable to have a uniform effect on the perception of the gradientattribute ldquosurpriserdquo

We must be careful to restrict our hypothesis that increased pitch span is achieved bylowering F0 to starred L- tones in Dutch Other L- tones may not behave in the same wayIndeed Fant and Kruckenberg (1994) found for Swedish that greater emphasis causes thelow F0 of Accent 2 to be lower but the low F0 for Accent 1 as well as all other targets tobe higher suggesting that not all L- tones are treated alike As observed by Ladd(forthcoming) the standard analysis (eg Bruce 1990) which analyzes Accent 1 as HLand Accent 2 as HL does not predict this result since one would sooner expect the L ofAccent 1 than the unstarred L- tone of Accent 2 to define the lower boundary of the pitchspan and thus be lowered with increased emphasis

Because the terms ldquohigh riserdquo and ldquolow riserdquo have been used in slightly differentmeanings we should be careful to prevent our results from being generalized to other distinc-tions In descriptions of British English ldquohigh risesrdquo are usually distinguished from ldquolow

201C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

risesrdquo on the basis of the end point For instance Halliday (1970) and OrsquoConnor and Arnold(1973) identify a rise from midlow to high (the ldquohigh riserdquo) as well as one from low tomidlow (the ldquolow riserdquo) Tench (1996) distinguishes low neutral and high rises on thebasis of the end point Crystal (1969) distinguishes three beginning points (high mediumlow) and three excursion sizes (wide normal narrow) to give nine categorically differentrises We believe that the rises described by these authors are versions of the L H-(H)contour with different pitch ranges Indeed the spoken illustrations accompanyingHalliday (1970) sound like such contours although the high rise is described as having amidlow beginning Cruttenden (1997 pp 51ndash 52) recognizes a (British) ldquolow riserdquo (ielow- range L L- H) as a category distinct from H H-H but suggests that wide-range L H-H and H H-H should be seen as a single category He also suggests thatH H-H is frequent in General American but has a low frequency of occurrence in BritishEnglish where the (British) ldquolow riserdquo tends to be used instead (see also 1997 pp 88 99)Cruttenden (1995) points out that utterance -final rises are on the increase in SouthernBritish speech among which there may well be ldquohigh risesrdquo (see also House 1998)

The description of Dutch intonation offered in rsquot Hart et al (1990) which makes nodistinction between the ldquohigh riserdquo and the ldquolow riserdquo could be modified so as to allow thecombination ldquo3rdquo (a late accent-lending rise) with ldquo2rdquo (equivalent to H) instead of justwith ldquoCrdquo (a nonaccent-lending fall) The combination ldquo32rdquo would then correspond to theldquolow riserdquo while ldquo12rdquo would represent only the ldquohigh riserdquo The description of Gussenhoven(1988 1991) which produces on a contour inventory based on phonological variations onthree basic pitch accents without ever producing a contour like the ldquohigh riserdquo should beaugmented with the contour H H which transcription adequately describes the two targetsof the ldquohigh riserdquo (see also Footnote 1)

Finally a more general conclusion In Experiment 3 we have seen how an investi-gation of the perceptual effects of pitch range led to a confirmation of a particular tonalanalysis of rising intonations This illustrates the importance of basing our data on as widea range of observations as possible The consideration of pitch range variation appears notonly to be relevant for studying models of phonetic implementation (cf Liberman ampPierrehumbert 1984) but also for models of phonological structure Indeed GrabeGussenhoven Haan Marsi and Post (1997) illustrates how studying the perception ofspeaker attitudes can lead to meaningful conclusions about intonational structure Theincreased interest for intonational meaning that seems to be detectable in experimentalresearch may therefore well lead to an improved understanding of morphology andphonology of intonation

Received January 18 1999 revised manuscript received September 22 1999 accepted December 6 1999

202 H and L in Dutch rising contours

REFERENCES

BARD E G ROBERTSON D amp SORACE A (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic accept-ability Language 72 32ndash68

BECKMAN M amp PIERREHUMBERT J B (1986) Intonational structure in English and JapanesePhonological Yearbook 3 255ndash310

BOERSMA P amp WEENINK D lthttpfonsg3letuvanlpraatgtBRUCE G (1990) Alignment and composition of tonal accents Comments on Silverman and

Pierrehumbertrsquos paper In J Kingston amp M Beckman (Eds) Papers in laboratory phonologyBetween the grammar and physics of speech (pp107ndash 114) Cambridge UK CambridgeUniversity Press

COLLIER R amp rsquot HART J (1980) Cursus Nederlandse IntonateLouvain AccoCOLLINS B amp MEES I (1981) The sounds of English The Hague Leiden University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1997) Intonation (2nd ed) Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1995) Rises in English In J Windsor Lewis (Ed) Studies in general and English

phonetics (pp155ndash173) London RoutledgeCRYSTAL D (1969) Prosodic systems and intonation in English Cambridge UK Cambridge

University PressERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H BECKMAN M E amp NIIMI S (1994) Global pitch range

and the production of low tones in English intonation International Conference on the Processingof Spoken Language 3 651ndash654

ERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H amp BECKMAN M E (1996) The production of low tonesin English intonation Journal of Phonetics 23 179ndash188

FANT G amp KRUCKENBERG A (1994) Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish SpeedTransmission Laboratorymdash Quarterly Status and Progress Report 2ndash 3 (pp125ndash 144) Alsopublished in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody 1994 Yokohama Japan

GRABE E GUSSENHOVEN C HAAN J MARSI E amp POST B (1997) Preaccentual pitch andspeaker attitude in Dutch Language and Speech 41 63ndash85

GUSSENHOVEN C (1988) Adequacy in intonation analysis The case of Dutch In H van der Hulstamp N Smith (Eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology (pp95ndash121) DordrechtForis

GUSSENHOVEN C (1991) Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch In T F Shannon amp J P Snapper(Eds) The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp139ndash 155) Lanham MDUniversity Press of America

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1988) Fundamental frequency declination in DutchTesting three hypotheses Journal of Phonetics 16 355ndash369

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1991) An experimental evaluation of two nuclear tonetaxonomies Linguistics 29 423ndash449

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1992) A target-interpolation model for the intonation of DutchICSLP2 (pp1235ndash1238)

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1997) Empirical evidence for the contrast between L andH in Dutch rising contours In A Botinis G Kouroupetroglou amp G Caryannis (Eds) Inton-ation Theory models and application Proceedings of ESCA workshop (pp169ndash172) AthensESCA and University of Athens

GUSSENHOVEN C REPP B H RIETVELD T RUMP H H amp TERKEN J (1997) The perceptualprominence of fundamental frequency peaks Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1023009ndash3022

HALLIDAY M A K (1970) IntonationLondon Oxford University Pressrsquot HART J COLLIER R amp COHEN A (1990) A perceptual study of intonation An experimental

phonetic approach Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressHOUSE J (1998) Review of Tench (1996) English Language and Linguistics 2 137ndash139

189C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

EXPERIMENT 1 THE PROMINENCE OF L H-H

Method

The purpose of Experiment 1 was to establish how variations in the F0 of L H- and Haffect the perceived prominence on accented words realized with a L H-H contour Weincluded both stimuli with the accented syllable in final position where L H- and Hare realized on the same syllable and stimuli with the accent in nonfinal position inwhich the targets of L and H- occur in or near the accented syllable but that of H appearson the final syllable All stimuli were manipulated versions of two utterances which hadone accented syllable printed in capitals below and which were originally spoken by a malenative speaker of standard Dutch with a weakly rising pitch accent on the capitalized wordsThe utterance durations were 1577 ms and 1716ms respectively

1 Een nieuwe motor is te DUURlsquoA new engine is too expensiversquo

2 Je was al EERder bij hem geweestlsquoYou had been to see him beforersquo

The stimuli were generated using the PSOLA-technique as included in the speechpackage PRAAT developed at the University of Amsterdam (Boersma amp Weenink) TheF0 of L H- and H was varied in three steps In stimuli with final accented syllables(cf the first utterance above) the F0 of H- was not included as a variable since its targetis located on the rising slope and does not constitute a separate acoustic event Crossingthe three steps led to nine stimuli (Set 1 see Table 1) In the stimuli with a nonfinal accent(cf the second utterance above) the three steps for L were combined with each of thethree steps for H- and each of those for H resulting in two sets of nine stimuli (Sets 2and 3 see Table 1) Contours began at 100Hz fell during 20ms to the value for L whichstarted at one- tenth of the vowel duration after the CV boundary and was held for 150 msIn the stimuli with nonfinal accent a 120ms rise to the value of H- was followed by a levelstretch a final rise of 100ms to the value of H followed by a 100ms level stretch In thestimuli with final accent the value for L was followed by a rise of 120 ms to the value forH These specifications were in part modeled on pronunciations of the sentences by thesame speaker and in part on trial and error Before creating the artif icial contours weincreased the articulation rate by multiplying the duration of all frames in the original speechfiles by 085 which appeared to us to improve the naturalness of the stimuli

Each set of nine stimuli was randomized six times resulting in 18 blocks of ninestimuli These were divided into two sets of nine blocks and each set was recorded onto aTK50 audiotape Each of the nine blocks was preceded by a 750ms warning signal corre-sponding to a new page of the response booklet Each stimulus was preceded by an anchorstimulus produced from the same original speech file as the test stimulus This anchorstimulus had an artificial L H L- L contour that is a rising- falling contour with apeak of 150 Hz on the syllable that carried the accent in the following test stimulus Thustwo different anchors one with a final and one with a nonfinal accent were included onthe tapes The interval between the anchor stimulus and the test stimulus was 2 s and thatbetween a test stimulus and the anchor stimulus of the next item was 55 s In additioneach tape began with 12 practice stimuli The total test duration was approximately 15 mins

190 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Two groups of 15 listeners were recruited from the student population of the Universityof Nijmegen approximately equally divided over both sexes with ages ranging between 19and 28 Each group of subjects was asked to listen to one of the tapes mdash each tape had adifferent random order of the stimuli mdash and to indicate the degree of ldquoEMPHASISrdquo with which the accented word in each stimulus was spoken by placing a tick across a 10 cmlong line which was uncalibrated except for a mark placed exactly in the middle Thisprocedure is similar to that known as ldquoline productionrdquo (Lodge 1981) a form of magnitudeestimation (cf Bard Robertson amp Sorace 1996) Each scale was labeled ldquolittle emphasisrdquoon the left and ldquomuch emphasisrdquo on the right4 In the response booklets the accentedword (eerder or duur) was printed to the left of each scale In the instruction judges weretold that the level of emphasis of the corresponding word in the anchor stimulus representeda position halfway down the scale as indicated by the midway calibration mark This enabledthem to relate their judgments to this value

Results

Scores were obtained by measuring the distances in millimeters from the beginning ofeach line to the marks placed by the judges There were no missing data Separate Analysesof Variance for each stimulus set were carried out (repeated measures only Huynh-Feldtcorrected significance levels are reported cf Rietveld amp van Hout 1993) Within - factorsfor Sets 1 and 2 were the scores for L and H and for Set 3 those for L and H- Theresults showed a significant effect of H in Set 1 F (258)= 744 plt01 and significanteffects of L in Sets 2 and 3 F (258)= 647 plt05 and F(258)= 1629 plt01 respec-tively There were no significant interactions In other words in final accented syllablesonly the end point has an effect on the perceived prominence while for nonfinal accentedsyllables both in combination with a varying H- and in combination with a varying Honly the beginning point has an effect on the perceived prominence In both cases the effectsconfirm the hypothesis that lower realizations of L and higher realizations of H lead togreater perceived prominence (cf Table 2)

Conclusion

Experiment 1 was only partly successful It showed that L behaved in the expected mannerwith lower values eliciting higher prominence judgments but also that judges paid noattention to its target in f inal position while conversely H elicited the expected

TABLE 1

F0 steps in Hz of L H- and H in three sets of stimuli

Accent location L H- H Nr of stimuli

Set 1 Final 80 90 100 ndash 140 150 160 9 Set 2 Nonfinal 80 90 100 130 140 150 160 9 Set 3 Nonfinal 80 90 100 120 130 140 150 9

4 In the original Dutch text the word nadruk was used for ldquoemphasisrdquo

191C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

prominence judgments only when the accent was located on a final syllable A possibleexplanation of these results would focus on the perceived prominence as the dependentvariable prominence may be interpreted locally and judgments may be triggered by themost salient feature in the accented syllable In the case of prominence judgments madeon the basis of L H L- L contours the cue provided by the height of the peak argu-ably the most salient feature is judged more consistently (barring the effect of the contourrsquosbeginning pitch which may determine the perception of the pitch range and barring theeffect of declination which causes later peaks to have less prominence and lower pitch(Gussenhoven et al 1997 Pierrehumbert 1979)) since the starting point of the rise andthe end point of the fall both happen to be in or near the accented syllable regardless ofthe location of the accent It seemed better therefore to look for a dependent variable whichis signaled by means of variations in pitch range but which listeners might respond to ina way that does not draw their attention to the physical shape of the contour Experiment 2was undertaken to find such a response variable

EXPERIMENT 2 LOOKING FOR A NEW RESPONSE VARIABLE

Method

The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the effect of variation in the F0 of LH- and H on the perception of a number of attributes which we hypothesized dependedon pitch range variation Basing ourselves on intuition we selected three attributes SURPRISEINSISTENCE and INDIGNATION Again our hypothesis was that for each of these attributeslower values of L and higher values of H- and H would result in higher scores Becauseour materials in Experiment 1 were somewhat limited both in the number of sourceutterances (two) and in syntactic structure (both were syntactic declaratives) we augmentedthe old stimuli with a new set based on two new utterances representing syntactic questionsspoken by the same speaker These utterances were provided with artif icial intonationcontours and overall speech rate following the same specifications as in Experiment 1 (seeTable 1) The new source utterances were pronunciations of sentences [3] and [4] belowwhich had durations of 1027 ms and 1492ms respectively

3 Is honderd gulden niet VEELlsquoIsnrsquot a hundred guilders a lotrsquo

TABLE 2

Mean prominence scores for each F0 step listed in order of increasing F0 in three stimulus setsSignificant factors are listed in the last column

L H- H

Targets in HzAccent location 80 90 100 120 130 140 140 150 160 plt05

Set 1 Final 532 541 504 ndash 510 525 541 H Set 2 Nonfinal 612 572 526 ndash 569 574 564 L Set 3 Nonfinal 632 604 568 626 597 582 ndash L

192 H and L in Dutch rising contours

4 Zijn er niet MEER mensen op afgekomenlsquoHavenrsquot more people comersquo

We prepared four test tapes Two of these contained the stimuli used in Experiment 1Sets 1 2 and 3 based on utterances 1 and 2 totaling 9 (stimuli per set) acute 3 (sets) or 27stimuli These 27 stimuli were randomized four times and recorded onto two digital tapessuch that each tape contained 54 test stimuli These were preceded on each tape by a set ofseven practice stimuli and followed by two filler stimuli so that the resulting 63 (ie 54+2+ 7) stimuli per tape could be blocked in nine groups of seven A block began with a 750mswarning signal followed by a 3s pause corresponding to a new page of the response bookletEach stimulus was presented three times with two 2 s intervals followed by a 6s pause Inthe same way two tapes were prepared that contained the stimuli based on utterances 3and 4 The total duration of each test tape was 13mins

The response booklets gave three scales for each stimulus each printed as ahyphenated series of numerals from 1 to 105 Each of the three scales was preceded by oneof the following descriptions always in this order6

yen the speaker expresses his surpriseyen the speaker insists on receiving an answer yen the speaker vents his indignation

Thirty-two judges whose ages ranged from 19 to 32 and who were equally dividedover both sexes were recruited among students and staff of the University of NijmegenThey were split into four groups of eight divided four-four or three- five over the two sexesThey were paid a small fee The four tapes were played to the four groups of judges overheadphones in a language laboratory They were instructed to judge the extent to whicheach stimulus conveyed the meanings given in the labels by circling one of the numeralsmaking up the corresponding scale Judges were encouraged to time the recording of theirjudgments in tune with the repetitions of each stimulus and to try and use the full rangeof the scales

Results

There were three missing data points which were supplied by taking the median of thescores for the item concerned within the group of eight judges Raw scores obtained in thefour tests were pooled For each of the three response categories separate Analyses ofVariance for each of the three stimulus sets were carried out (repeated measures onlyHuynh-Feldt corrected significance levels are reported) Within - factors for sets 1 and 2were the scores for L and H and for set 3 those for L and H- In the case of SURPRISEsignificant effects for L and H were observed in all cases (L set 1 F(262)= 1483plt001 L set 2 F(262)= 1963 plt001 L set 3 F(262)= 775 p=002 H set 1F(262)= 1126 plt001 H set 2 F(262)= 2165 plt001 but the scores for H- in set 3

5 It was felt that the transfer of scores from three uncalibrated scales might be unreasonably time-consuming and possibly error-prone which is the reason we opted for the 10-points scales

6 The Dutch labels were respectively ldquoDe spreker drukt zijn verbazing uitrdquo ldquoDe spreker dringtaan op een antwoordrdquo and ldquoDe spreker geeft blijk van verontwaardigingrdquo

193C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

were not significant In the case of the response variable INSISTENCE there was a significanteffect for H in set 1 the set with final accent (H set 1 F(262)=764 plt01) In the datafor INDIGNATION the factor L was significant in set 2 the set with nonfinal accent withvariable H (L set 2 F(262)= 574 plt01) There were no significant interactions Table3 lists mean scores per F0 variable separately for each stimulus set for the three responsevariables Significant factors are listed in the last column

Conclusion

The results of Experiment 2 suggest that the attributes INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION are notperceived in accordance with the hypothesis that these dependent variables correlate withvariations in pitch range whereby pitch range can be increased by lowering L and raisingH- and H In fact the scores for the significant factor L in set 1 for INDIGNATION showa pattern which is the inverse of what we had expected to find in these data increasedperceived Indignation corresponding to higher values for L This result would appear toconfirm the conclusion of Mozziconacci (1998 p 121) that INDIGNATION is a perceptualattribute of ldquo12rdquo (in IPO-notation) that is H H-H contours with high pitch level andlarge pitch ranges The positive correlation between the F0 of L and perceived indignationmay point to a different type of manipulation of the pitch range in indignant speech thanin surprised speech Indignant speech may be cued by raising what Ladd (1996) calls theoverall pitch level instead of the pitch span

In contrast to the results for INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION the attribute SURPRISE

produced scores which were consistently in agreement with our hypothesis It is possiblethat the poor results for INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION were in part due the fact that these

TABLE 3

Mean SURPRISE INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION scores for each F0 step listed in order of increas-ing F0 in three stimulus sets

L H- H

Target in Hz Accent location 80 90 100 120 130 140 140 150 160 plt05

SurpriseSet 1 Final 537 468 426 ndash 426 484 521 L HSet 2 Nonfinal 559 525 445 ndash 447 518 563 L HSet 3 Nonfinal 625 590 570 563 574 648 ndash L

InsistenceSet 1 Final 545 538 537 ndash 528 510 582 ndashSet 2 Nonfinal 615 617 655 ndash 620 626 641 HSet 3 Nonfinal 616 625 627 622 623 623 ndash ndash

IndignationSet 1 Final 465 482 506 ndash 482 498 473 ndashSet 2 Nonfinal 432 468 512 ndash 500 458 455 LSet 3 Nonfinal 417 421 403 413 417 411 ndash ndash

194 H and L in Dutch rising contours

scales occupied the second and third positions respectively on the response sheets Theattention of the judges may well have slackened off after they had filled in the SURPRISE

scale which headed the list of three scales for each stimulus With hindsight it might havebeen better to present the stimuli separately for each response variable This would alsohave made it possible to include anchor stimuli as in Experiment 1 the omission of whichmay have contributed to the more erratic nature of the scores in Experiment 2

The aim of Experiment 2 was to find a response variable that depended on the pitchspan of the contour as conceived in the way outlined above and on the basis of these resultstherefore Experiment 3 can take as its starting point an appropriately refined hypothesiswith ldquoperceived surpriserdquo as the response variable Although it was not our purpose toestablish the full spectrum of attitudinal or emotional effects of different pitch range manip-ulations future research might well further explore the effects of pitch level and pitch spanin signaling of speaker attitudes and emotions

EXPERIMENT 3 PITTING L AGAINST H

Method

The purpose of Experiment 3 was to replicate the results obtained in Experiment 2 forSURPRISE and moreover to show that high rise contours analyzed as H H-H behave inthe same way as low rise contours for this dependent variable with the crucial exceptionthat lower beginnings of the high rise cause the utterance to express less surprise insteadof more as found for L in Experiment 2 To this end a different male speaker of Dutchrecorded the four sentences of Experiment 2 each spoken with an unemphatic weakly risingpitch accent on digital tape The durations were

1 Een nieuwe motor is te DUUR 1234ms

2 Je was al EERder bij hem geweest 1432ms

3 Is honderd gulden niet VEEL 1224ms

4 Zijn er niet MEER mensen op afgekomen 1608ms

Since the speech rate of these new utterances was some 20 faster than that of theutterances used for Experiment 1 the speech rate was left unchanged The F0 was artif i-cially manipulated with the help of the P-SOLA program made available in PRAAT Wedecided not to vary the F0 of H- in this test because the H H-H contours do not havea separate pitch target corresponding to H- and inclusion of this variable in the low risecontours would thus have introduced an imbalance in our experiment We used substan-tially higher values for H- and for the three steps for H as the old values produced asomewhat dull effect in these new utterances which we feared would have led to a crowdingof scores at the low end of the scale Table 4 gives the F0 values we used while diagram-matic representations of the stimuli are given in Figure 2

Since the variation in the F0 of the starred tone (3 steps) was crossed with the variationin the F0 of H (3 steps) there were nine stimuli for each source utterance The F0 of thepost-accentual mid-high level in the L H-H stimuli with nonfinal accent was heldconstant at 145 Hz Again in the corresponding stimuli with final accent there was nosuch mid level section F0 rising smoothly from the target of L to that of H The target

195C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

TABLE 4

F0 steps in Hz for L and H in final and nonfinal accented low rising contours and of H(H-)and H in final and nonfinal accented high rising contours used in Experiment 3

Accent location L H- H Nr of stimuli

Final 80 90 100 ndash 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 80 90 100 145 185 200 215 9

HH- H

Final 130 145 160 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 130 145 160 185 200 215 9

Figure 2

Diagrammatic representations of the stimuli used in Experiment 2 Nonfinal-accented L H-H is given in panel a final-accented L H-H in panel b nonfinal-accented H H-H inpanel c and final-accented H H-H in panel d

196 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for T began at one-tenth of the duration of the vowel after the CV boundary followingan 80ms rise in the case of H and a 20 ms fall in the case of L each starting at 100Hzthe end point of the prehead Except in the case of the final word duur the target of Lwas 80 ms long The target for H- after L and that of HH- (which have a single F0) ceased100ms before the target of H The end point of the final rise was located at the pointwhere the F0 reached a peak in the original contour which resulted in final voiced levelstretches varying from 0 (duur) to 70 ms (afgekomen) The target for L on duur lasted100 ms which left 80 ms for the final rise As before these values were arrived at on thebasis of the naturally spoken utterances and informal judgments of the naturalness of theartif icial contours

The total number of stimuli was 72 (2 contours acute 9 versions acute 4 sentences) We added24 fillers equally divided over the four source utterances with a variety of realization ofa L H L-H (ie a rising -falling -rising) contour This was done in order to increasethe intonational variety in the test These 96 items were randomized twice and each orderwas recorded onto digital tape preceded by ten practice stimuli of which the first eightwere identif ied as such in the instruction sheet and followed by two closing stimuli TheInter-Stimulus Interval was 45s The 108 stimuli (4 sentences acute 2 contours acute 9 versions=72 + 10 practice stimuli + 2 closing stimuli + 24 fillers) were presented in seven blocks of15 and one block of 3 Each block corresponded to a page on the answer sheet and waspreceded by a brief excerpt from a piano recital to give listeners an opportunity to relaxand turn the page The musical excerpt was followed by a 6 s pause and an anchor stimuluswhich was a pronunciation of the phrase Maal honderdTIEN ( lsquotimes a hundred -and -tenrsquo) produced by the same speaker who produced the source utterances realized with aL H L-H contour with a peak of 144 Hz and a low baseline of 110 Hz The degree ofsurprise realized in this anchor stimulus was said to lie exactly halfway on the scale InExperiment 1 we had an anchor stimulus before every stimulus This seemed to usunnecessary by the time we were designing Experiment 3 Pilot research without any anchorstimuli by Hedi Klein Tank had shown that for each page in the answer booklet the variancein the scores was positively correlated with serial position on the page It would appeartherefore that without anchors judges lose some of their orientation on the scale at theturn of each page Anchoring the scale at exactly those points in the test would thus seemto be the appropriate procedure

Two groups of subjects aged between 19 and 30 were recruited from the studentpopulation of Nijmegen one consisting of 15 and the other of 14 subjects The two tapeseach with a different random order of the stimuli were played at a comfortable volume vialoudspeakers to the two groups of subjects Judges were asked to rate the degree of surpriseexpressed by the intonation of each stimulus by placing a mark on a 100mm scale as inExperiment I They were paid a small fee

Results

Scores were obtained as for Experiment 1 An Analysis of Variance (repeated measures)was carried out to assess the influence of the independent variables on the scores Fourwithin -subject factors were included in the design ACCENT- LOCATION (early late)CONTOUR (L H-H vs H H-H) HEIGHT-OF-T (3 levels) and HEIGHT-OF-H (3 levels) In order to have an appropriate ratio between the number of independent

197C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

variables and the number of subjects scores were pooled over the four sentences nestedunder ACCENT- LOCATION Adopting a significance level of 05 we found the followingsignificant main effects CONTOUR F (128)= 1281 p= 001 HEIGHT-OF -TF(256)=5997 plt 001 and HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)=2603 plt 001 Two-way inter-actions were obtained for ACCENT- LOCATION CONTOUR F(256)= 6317 plt 001ACCENT- LOCATION acute HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)= 1187 plt001 and CONTOURacute HEIGHT-OF-T F (256)= 504 p=01 Where appropriate all significance levels wereHuynh-Feldt corrected

The important result here is the interaction between CONTOUR and HEIGHT-OF-T It indicates that raising the beginning of the rise does not have the same effect in thelow rise as it has in the high rise In order to assess the extent to which the scores variedas a function of the beginning of the rise in the L H-H and H H-H contours a trendanalysis (SPSS-MANOVA) was carried out on the data with a polynomial fitted consistingof a linear and a quadratic component An overall linear component as a function ofHEIGHT-OF-T was found to be significant F(128)= 7503 plt001 which interactedsignificantly with the factor CONTOUR F(128)= 810 p=008 The quadratic componentwas not significant

Figure 3 in which the scores for L and H are plotted for different levels of Hshows the crucial interaction graphically Data are pooled over four sentences In the toppanel we see that the lowest value (130 Hz) for H resulted in the lowest level of perceivedsurprise while the highest value (160Hz) expresses the highest degree In the bottom panelthe inverse relation is apparent for L Also the constant effect of H can be clearly seenin both contour types the degree of perceived surprise increases with increasing values ofH with only the stimuli combining L = 80 Hz and H= 185 Hz falling somewhat abovethe expected location

Discussion

The results of Experiment 3 replicate those obtained for perceived surprise in Experiment 2The conclusion must be that ldquohigh risesrdquo and ldquolow risesrdquo form separate phonological cate-gories in Dutch and moreover that ldquolow risesrdquo begin with L and ldquohigh risesrdquo begin withH We will return to this finding in the General Discussion

The effect of ACCENT- LOCATION and its significant interactions with CONTOURand HEIGHT-OF-H are of less interest The first interaction is due to the fact thatscores for the high rise are considerably higher for final accents than for nonfinal accentswhile those for the low rise are less affected by accent location and show a less extremebut opposite pattern Figure 4 presents the scores separately for final and nonfinal accents(pooled over two sentences) showing this interaction in nonfinal position high risingcontours convey less surprise than low- rising contours (panels (b) and (d)) while in finalposition this is not the case (cf panels (a) and (c)) Since the most striking data here arethe low scores for the high rise in nonfinal position this result can be explained by the factthat in these contours two relatively small F0- rises are divided over two syllables Bycontrast in the three other conditions the rises are either piled on top of each other (finalaccent) or the first of them is considerably larger (low rise on nonfinal accent) Lastly theinteraction between ACCENT- LOCATION and HEIGHT-OF-H is due to the greaterdifferentiation of the scores for H in final-accented rising stimuli as compared with those

198 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for the corresponding stimuli with nonfinal accents This effect visible in panels (a) and(c) versus (b) and (d) in Figure 4 is most probably to be explained on the basis of the greatersalience of H in rising contours that serve to accent final syllables

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In a series of experiments we investigated the behavior of Dutch rising nuclear contours asa function of changes in pitch range by asking listeners to rate such contours on perceivedattributes believed to be expressed through variations in pitch range Our interest in the firsttwo experiments was in the behavior of L which had been claimed to be lowered withincreasing pitch range The first attribute we investigated prominence (Experiment 1)showed that perceived prominence is not an appropriate response variable since listenersperceive prominence in terms of salient pitch characteristics in the accented syllablerather than of the entire contour as realized over a polysyllabic stretch of speech In effectthey ignored the beginning of the rising movement in contours with final accent and theend in contours with nonfinal accent Experiment 2 which was undertaken to see if oneor more of the attributes ldquosurpriserdquo ldquoinsistencerdquo and ldquoindignationrdquo was perceived as afunction of the entire contour showed that perceived surprise correlated with the pitchrange if pitch range is assumed to be increased by raising H-tones but lowering L Onthe basis of the results of Experiment 3 in which the L H-H contour was compared withthe H H-H contour we found that perceived surprise is higher as the end of the rising

(a)

Figure 3

Perceived surprise as a function of H andH (panel (a)) and L and H (panel (b))

(b)

199C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

contour is higher but that the effect of the beginning of the rising contour in the accentedsyllable depends on whether relative to the preceding pitch it begins low in which casegreater surprise is signaled by lower pitch or high in which case the opposite is true

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these findings First it may not be usefulto consider perceived prominence to be an interesting attribute of a nuclear contour like LH-H or of the nuclear accent L It is of course common to think about pitch accents asdiscrete elements which are either present or absent and to believe that when presentthey have some level of prominence or strength This ldquoaccent strengthrdquo is we like to thinka function of the pitch level and pitch span specifications of the contour (Gussenhoven etal 1997) but it would now appear that information about these specifications cannot alwaysbe obtained by asking listeners to rate syllables (accents words or phrases) for perceivedprominence since these judgments are strongly influenced by the contextually determinedshape of the pitch contour in the accented syllable such that final and nonfinal accentedsyllables may receive very different reactions even if the pitch targets are identical

Figure 4

Perceived surprise as a function of H and H (top panels) and of L and H (bottom panels)for stimuli with final accents (panels (a) and (c)) and nonfinal accents (panels (b) and (d))separately

200 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Second one way in which speakers can convey surprise in Dutch is by increasing thepitch range as conceived by Liberman -Pierrehumbert lowering L and raising H-tones(A caveat is in order for speaker gender our results are based on the evaluation of malespeech) There are reports however that suggest that L- tones go up when the pitch rangeis increased Erickson Honda Hirai Beckman and Niimi (1994) show that increased levelsof vocal effort (soft voice normal voice loud voice) correlate with F0 of L in English theloud voice has the highest L- tones These findings are not contradictory however if thedistinction between pitch level and pitch span (Ladd 1996 p 260) is observed Restrictingourselves to within -speaker variation the strategy of overall raising of the pitch level whichwould only appear to be possible for the whole contour should perhaps be associated withhigher levels of arousal As was observed in the Discussion for Experiment 2 indignationis possibly expressed in this way as can be concluded on the basis of our finding thathigher targets for L lead to higher perceived indignation in two of the three types of stimuliAlso ldquospeaking uprdquo may employ this type of variation as suggested by the results ofErickson et al (1994) where the overall pitch raising may be seen as due to the effort toproduce a signal that carries over a greater distance By contrast expansion of the pitchspan is more appropriate for increases in what we might call intonational ldquoexplicitnessrdquoto be used when expressing emphasis or surprise and possibly in utterances that serve ascorrections of earlier utterances that were misunderstood or to listeners who are (believedto be) hard of hearing

The third conclusion is most immediately related to the purpose of our experimentsThe results of Experiment 3 provide strong support for the phonological analysis of risesby Pierrehumbert (1980) who described the equivalent American English contours as LH -H (low rise) and H H- H (high rise) respectively In combination with theassumption made in Liberman and Pierrehumbert (1984) that L is lowered but H-tonesraised when the pitch range is increased that analysis accurately explains the resultsobtained That is L H H and H H-H are categorically distinct contours of DutchThe alternative interpretation by which the contours corresponding to these transcriptionsform a single phonological class and represent different realizations varying merely ingradient pitch range must be excluded If our stimuli represented different realizations ofthe same phonological contour we would have expected the phonetic variation from highto low pitch in the accented syllable to have a uniform effect on the perception of the gradientattribute ldquosurpriserdquo

We must be careful to restrict our hypothesis that increased pitch span is achieved bylowering F0 to starred L- tones in Dutch Other L- tones may not behave in the same wayIndeed Fant and Kruckenberg (1994) found for Swedish that greater emphasis causes thelow F0 of Accent 2 to be lower but the low F0 for Accent 1 as well as all other targets tobe higher suggesting that not all L- tones are treated alike As observed by Ladd(forthcoming) the standard analysis (eg Bruce 1990) which analyzes Accent 1 as HLand Accent 2 as HL does not predict this result since one would sooner expect the L ofAccent 1 than the unstarred L- tone of Accent 2 to define the lower boundary of the pitchspan and thus be lowered with increased emphasis

Because the terms ldquohigh riserdquo and ldquolow riserdquo have been used in slightly differentmeanings we should be careful to prevent our results from being generalized to other distinc-tions In descriptions of British English ldquohigh risesrdquo are usually distinguished from ldquolow

201C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

risesrdquo on the basis of the end point For instance Halliday (1970) and OrsquoConnor and Arnold(1973) identify a rise from midlow to high (the ldquohigh riserdquo) as well as one from low tomidlow (the ldquolow riserdquo) Tench (1996) distinguishes low neutral and high rises on thebasis of the end point Crystal (1969) distinguishes three beginning points (high mediumlow) and three excursion sizes (wide normal narrow) to give nine categorically differentrises We believe that the rises described by these authors are versions of the L H-(H)contour with different pitch ranges Indeed the spoken illustrations accompanyingHalliday (1970) sound like such contours although the high rise is described as having amidlow beginning Cruttenden (1997 pp 51ndash 52) recognizes a (British) ldquolow riserdquo (ielow- range L L- H) as a category distinct from H H-H but suggests that wide-range L H-H and H H-H should be seen as a single category He also suggests thatH H-H is frequent in General American but has a low frequency of occurrence in BritishEnglish where the (British) ldquolow riserdquo tends to be used instead (see also 1997 pp 88 99)Cruttenden (1995) points out that utterance -final rises are on the increase in SouthernBritish speech among which there may well be ldquohigh risesrdquo (see also House 1998)

The description of Dutch intonation offered in rsquot Hart et al (1990) which makes nodistinction between the ldquohigh riserdquo and the ldquolow riserdquo could be modified so as to allow thecombination ldquo3rdquo (a late accent-lending rise) with ldquo2rdquo (equivalent to H) instead of justwith ldquoCrdquo (a nonaccent-lending fall) The combination ldquo32rdquo would then correspond to theldquolow riserdquo while ldquo12rdquo would represent only the ldquohigh riserdquo The description of Gussenhoven(1988 1991) which produces on a contour inventory based on phonological variations onthree basic pitch accents without ever producing a contour like the ldquohigh riserdquo should beaugmented with the contour H H which transcription adequately describes the two targetsof the ldquohigh riserdquo (see also Footnote 1)

Finally a more general conclusion In Experiment 3 we have seen how an investi-gation of the perceptual effects of pitch range led to a confirmation of a particular tonalanalysis of rising intonations This illustrates the importance of basing our data on as widea range of observations as possible The consideration of pitch range variation appears notonly to be relevant for studying models of phonetic implementation (cf Liberman ampPierrehumbert 1984) but also for models of phonological structure Indeed GrabeGussenhoven Haan Marsi and Post (1997) illustrates how studying the perception ofspeaker attitudes can lead to meaningful conclusions about intonational structure Theincreased interest for intonational meaning that seems to be detectable in experimentalresearch may therefore well lead to an improved understanding of morphology andphonology of intonation

Received January 18 1999 revised manuscript received September 22 1999 accepted December 6 1999

202 H and L in Dutch rising contours

REFERENCES

BARD E G ROBERTSON D amp SORACE A (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic accept-ability Language 72 32ndash68

BECKMAN M amp PIERREHUMBERT J B (1986) Intonational structure in English and JapanesePhonological Yearbook 3 255ndash310

BOERSMA P amp WEENINK D lthttpfonsg3letuvanlpraatgtBRUCE G (1990) Alignment and composition of tonal accents Comments on Silverman and

Pierrehumbertrsquos paper In J Kingston amp M Beckman (Eds) Papers in laboratory phonologyBetween the grammar and physics of speech (pp107ndash 114) Cambridge UK CambridgeUniversity Press

COLLIER R amp rsquot HART J (1980) Cursus Nederlandse IntonateLouvain AccoCOLLINS B amp MEES I (1981) The sounds of English The Hague Leiden University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1997) Intonation (2nd ed) Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1995) Rises in English In J Windsor Lewis (Ed) Studies in general and English

phonetics (pp155ndash173) London RoutledgeCRYSTAL D (1969) Prosodic systems and intonation in English Cambridge UK Cambridge

University PressERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H BECKMAN M E amp NIIMI S (1994) Global pitch range

and the production of low tones in English intonation International Conference on the Processingof Spoken Language 3 651ndash654

ERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H amp BECKMAN M E (1996) The production of low tonesin English intonation Journal of Phonetics 23 179ndash188

FANT G amp KRUCKENBERG A (1994) Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish SpeedTransmission Laboratorymdash Quarterly Status and Progress Report 2ndash 3 (pp125ndash 144) Alsopublished in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody 1994 Yokohama Japan

GRABE E GUSSENHOVEN C HAAN J MARSI E amp POST B (1997) Preaccentual pitch andspeaker attitude in Dutch Language and Speech 41 63ndash85

GUSSENHOVEN C (1988) Adequacy in intonation analysis The case of Dutch In H van der Hulstamp N Smith (Eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology (pp95ndash121) DordrechtForis

GUSSENHOVEN C (1991) Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch In T F Shannon amp J P Snapper(Eds) The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp139ndash 155) Lanham MDUniversity Press of America

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1988) Fundamental frequency declination in DutchTesting three hypotheses Journal of Phonetics 16 355ndash369

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1991) An experimental evaluation of two nuclear tonetaxonomies Linguistics 29 423ndash449

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1992) A target-interpolation model for the intonation of DutchICSLP2 (pp1235ndash1238)

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1997) Empirical evidence for the contrast between L andH in Dutch rising contours In A Botinis G Kouroupetroglou amp G Caryannis (Eds) Inton-ation Theory models and application Proceedings of ESCA workshop (pp169ndash172) AthensESCA and University of Athens

GUSSENHOVEN C REPP B H RIETVELD T RUMP H H amp TERKEN J (1997) The perceptualprominence of fundamental frequency peaks Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1023009ndash3022

HALLIDAY M A K (1970) IntonationLondon Oxford University Pressrsquot HART J COLLIER R amp COHEN A (1990) A perceptual study of intonation An experimental

phonetic approach Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressHOUSE J (1998) Review of Tench (1996) English Language and Linguistics 2 137ndash139

190 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Two groups of 15 listeners were recruited from the student population of the Universityof Nijmegen approximately equally divided over both sexes with ages ranging between 19and 28 Each group of subjects was asked to listen to one of the tapes mdash each tape had adifferent random order of the stimuli mdash and to indicate the degree of ldquoEMPHASISrdquo with which the accented word in each stimulus was spoken by placing a tick across a 10 cmlong line which was uncalibrated except for a mark placed exactly in the middle Thisprocedure is similar to that known as ldquoline productionrdquo (Lodge 1981) a form of magnitudeestimation (cf Bard Robertson amp Sorace 1996) Each scale was labeled ldquolittle emphasisrdquoon the left and ldquomuch emphasisrdquo on the right4 In the response booklets the accentedword (eerder or duur) was printed to the left of each scale In the instruction judges weretold that the level of emphasis of the corresponding word in the anchor stimulus representeda position halfway down the scale as indicated by the midway calibration mark This enabledthem to relate their judgments to this value

Results

Scores were obtained by measuring the distances in millimeters from the beginning ofeach line to the marks placed by the judges There were no missing data Separate Analysesof Variance for each stimulus set were carried out (repeated measures only Huynh-Feldtcorrected significance levels are reported cf Rietveld amp van Hout 1993) Within - factorsfor Sets 1 and 2 were the scores for L and H and for Set 3 those for L and H- Theresults showed a significant effect of H in Set 1 F (258)= 744 plt01 and significanteffects of L in Sets 2 and 3 F (258)= 647 plt05 and F(258)= 1629 plt01 respec-tively There were no significant interactions In other words in final accented syllablesonly the end point has an effect on the perceived prominence while for nonfinal accentedsyllables both in combination with a varying H- and in combination with a varying Honly the beginning point has an effect on the perceived prominence In both cases the effectsconfirm the hypothesis that lower realizations of L and higher realizations of H lead togreater perceived prominence (cf Table 2)

Conclusion

Experiment 1 was only partly successful It showed that L behaved in the expected mannerwith lower values eliciting higher prominence judgments but also that judges paid noattention to its target in f inal position while conversely H elicited the expected

TABLE 1

F0 steps in Hz of L H- and H in three sets of stimuli

Accent location L H- H Nr of stimuli

Set 1 Final 80 90 100 ndash 140 150 160 9 Set 2 Nonfinal 80 90 100 130 140 150 160 9 Set 3 Nonfinal 80 90 100 120 130 140 150 9

4 In the original Dutch text the word nadruk was used for ldquoemphasisrdquo

191C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

prominence judgments only when the accent was located on a final syllable A possibleexplanation of these results would focus on the perceived prominence as the dependentvariable prominence may be interpreted locally and judgments may be triggered by themost salient feature in the accented syllable In the case of prominence judgments madeon the basis of L H L- L contours the cue provided by the height of the peak argu-ably the most salient feature is judged more consistently (barring the effect of the contourrsquosbeginning pitch which may determine the perception of the pitch range and barring theeffect of declination which causes later peaks to have less prominence and lower pitch(Gussenhoven et al 1997 Pierrehumbert 1979)) since the starting point of the rise andthe end point of the fall both happen to be in or near the accented syllable regardless ofthe location of the accent It seemed better therefore to look for a dependent variable whichis signaled by means of variations in pitch range but which listeners might respond to ina way that does not draw their attention to the physical shape of the contour Experiment 2was undertaken to find such a response variable

EXPERIMENT 2 LOOKING FOR A NEW RESPONSE VARIABLE

Method

The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the effect of variation in the F0 of LH- and H on the perception of a number of attributes which we hypothesized dependedon pitch range variation Basing ourselves on intuition we selected three attributes SURPRISEINSISTENCE and INDIGNATION Again our hypothesis was that for each of these attributeslower values of L and higher values of H- and H would result in higher scores Becauseour materials in Experiment 1 were somewhat limited both in the number of sourceutterances (two) and in syntactic structure (both were syntactic declaratives) we augmentedthe old stimuli with a new set based on two new utterances representing syntactic questionsspoken by the same speaker These utterances were provided with artif icial intonationcontours and overall speech rate following the same specifications as in Experiment 1 (seeTable 1) The new source utterances were pronunciations of sentences [3] and [4] belowwhich had durations of 1027 ms and 1492ms respectively

3 Is honderd gulden niet VEELlsquoIsnrsquot a hundred guilders a lotrsquo

TABLE 2

Mean prominence scores for each F0 step listed in order of increasing F0 in three stimulus setsSignificant factors are listed in the last column

L H- H

Targets in HzAccent location 80 90 100 120 130 140 140 150 160 plt05

Set 1 Final 532 541 504 ndash 510 525 541 H Set 2 Nonfinal 612 572 526 ndash 569 574 564 L Set 3 Nonfinal 632 604 568 626 597 582 ndash L

192 H and L in Dutch rising contours

4 Zijn er niet MEER mensen op afgekomenlsquoHavenrsquot more people comersquo

We prepared four test tapes Two of these contained the stimuli used in Experiment 1Sets 1 2 and 3 based on utterances 1 and 2 totaling 9 (stimuli per set) acute 3 (sets) or 27stimuli These 27 stimuli were randomized four times and recorded onto two digital tapessuch that each tape contained 54 test stimuli These were preceded on each tape by a set ofseven practice stimuli and followed by two filler stimuli so that the resulting 63 (ie 54+2+ 7) stimuli per tape could be blocked in nine groups of seven A block began with a 750mswarning signal followed by a 3s pause corresponding to a new page of the response bookletEach stimulus was presented three times with two 2 s intervals followed by a 6s pause Inthe same way two tapes were prepared that contained the stimuli based on utterances 3and 4 The total duration of each test tape was 13mins

The response booklets gave three scales for each stimulus each printed as ahyphenated series of numerals from 1 to 105 Each of the three scales was preceded by oneof the following descriptions always in this order6

yen the speaker expresses his surpriseyen the speaker insists on receiving an answer yen the speaker vents his indignation

Thirty-two judges whose ages ranged from 19 to 32 and who were equally dividedover both sexes were recruited among students and staff of the University of NijmegenThey were split into four groups of eight divided four-four or three- five over the two sexesThey were paid a small fee The four tapes were played to the four groups of judges overheadphones in a language laboratory They were instructed to judge the extent to whicheach stimulus conveyed the meanings given in the labels by circling one of the numeralsmaking up the corresponding scale Judges were encouraged to time the recording of theirjudgments in tune with the repetitions of each stimulus and to try and use the full rangeof the scales

Results

There were three missing data points which were supplied by taking the median of thescores for the item concerned within the group of eight judges Raw scores obtained in thefour tests were pooled For each of the three response categories separate Analyses ofVariance for each of the three stimulus sets were carried out (repeated measures onlyHuynh-Feldt corrected significance levels are reported) Within - factors for sets 1 and 2were the scores for L and H and for set 3 those for L and H- In the case of SURPRISEsignificant effects for L and H were observed in all cases (L set 1 F(262)= 1483plt001 L set 2 F(262)= 1963 plt001 L set 3 F(262)= 775 p=002 H set 1F(262)= 1126 plt001 H set 2 F(262)= 2165 plt001 but the scores for H- in set 3

5 It was felt that the transfer of scores from three uncalibrated scales might be unreasonably time-consuming and possibly error-prone which is the reason we opted for the 10-points scales

6 The Dutch labels were respectively ldquoDe spreker drukt zijn verbazing uitrdquo ldquoDe spreker dringtaan op een antwoordrdquo and ldquoDe spreker geeft blijk van verontwaardigingrdquo

193C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

were not significant In the case of the response variable INSISTENCE there was a significanteffect for H in set 1 the set with final accent (H set 1 F(262)=764 plt01) In the datafor INDIGNATION the factor L was significant in set 2 the set with nonfinal accent withvariable H (L set 2 F(262)= 574 plt01) There were no significant interactions Table3 lists mean scores per F0 variable separately for each stimulus set for the three responsevariables Significant factors are listed in the last column

Conclusion

The results of Experiment 2 suggest that the attributes INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION are notperceived in accordance with the hypothesis that these dependent variables correlate withvariations in pitch range whereby pitch range can be increased by lowering L and raisingH- and H In fact the scores for the significant factor L in set 1 for INDIGNATION showa pattern which is the inverse of what we had expected to find in these data increasedperceived Indignation corresponding to higher values for L This result would appear toconfirm the conclusion of Mozziconacci (1998 p 121) that INDIGNATION is a perceptualattribute of ldquo12rdquo (in IPO-notation) that is H H-H contours with high pitch level andlarge pitch ranges The positive correlation between the F0 of L and perceived indignationmay point to a different type of manipulation of the pitch range in indignant speech thanin surprised speech Indignant speech may be cued by raising what Ladd (1996) calls theoverall pitch level instead of the pitch span

In contrast to the results for INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION the attribute SURPRISE

produced scores which were consistently in agreement with our hypothesis It is possiblethat the poor results for INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION were in part due the fact that these

TABLE 3

Mean SURPRISE INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION scores for each F0 step listed in order of increas-ing F0 in three stimulus sets

L H- H

Target in Hz Accent location 80 90 100 120 130 140 140 150 160 plt05

SurpriseSet 1 Final 537 468 426 ndash 426 484 521 L HSet 2 Nonfinal 559 525 445 ndash 447 518 563 L HSet 3 Nonfinal 625 590 570 563 574 648 ndash L

InsistenceSet 1 Final 545 538 537 ndash 528 510 582 ndashSet 2 Nonfinal 615 617 655 ndash 620 626 641 HSet 3 Nonfinal 616 625 627 622 623 623 ndash ndash

IndignationSet 1 Final 465 482 506 ndash 482 498 473 ndashSet 2 Nonfinal 432 468 512 ndash 500 458 455 LSet 3 Nonfinal 417 421 403 413 417 411 ndash ndash

194 H and L in Dutch rising contours

scales occupied the second and third positions respectively on the response sheets Theattention of the judges may well have slackened off after they had filled in the SURPRISE

scale which headed the list of three scales for each stimulus With hindsight it might havebeen better to present the stimuli separately for each response variable This would alsohave made it possible to include anchor stimuli as in Experiment 1 the omission of whichmay have contributed to the more erratic nature of the scores in Experiment 2

The aim of Experiment 2 was to find a response variable that depended on the pitchspan of the contour as conceived in the way outlined above and on the basis of these resultstherefore Experiment 3 can take as its starting point an appropriately refined hypothesiswith ldquoperceived surpriserdquo as the response variable Although it was not our purpose toestablish the full spectrum of attitudinal or emotional effects of different pitch range manip-ulations future research might well further explore the effects of pitch level and pitch spanin signaling of speaker attitudes and emotions

EXPERIMENT 3 PITTING L AGAINST H

Method

The purpose of Experiment 3 was to replicate the results obtained in Experiment 2 forSURPRISE and moreover to show that high rise contours analyzed as H H-H behave inthe same way as low rise contours for this dependent variable with the crucial exceptionthat lower beginnings of the high rise cause the utterance to express less surprise insteadof more as found for L in Experiment 2 To this end a different male speaker of Dutchrecorded the four sentences of Experiment 2 each spoken with an unemphatic weakly risingpitch accent on digital tape The durations were

1 Een nieuwe motor is te DUUR 1234ms

2 Je was al EERder bij hem geweest 1432ms

3 Is honderd gulden niet VEEL 1224ms

4 Zijn er niet MEER mensen op afgekomen 1608ms

Since the speech rate of these new utterances was some 20 faster than that of theutterances used for Experiment 1 the speech rate was left unchanged The F0 was artif i-cially manipulated with the help of the P-SOLA program made available in PRAAT Wedecided not to vary the F0 of H- in this test because the H H-H contours do not havea separate pitch target corresponding to H- and inclusion of this variable in the low risecontours would thus have introduced an imbalance in our experiment We used substan-tially higher values for H- and for the three steps for H as the old values produced asomewhat dull effect in these new utterances which we feared would have led to a crowdingof scores at the low end of the scale Table 4 gives the F0 values we used while diagram-matic representations of the stimuli are given in Figure 2

Since the variation in the F0 of the starred tone (3 steps) was crossed with the variationin the F0 of H (3 steps) there were nine stimuli for each source utterance The F0 of thepost-accentual mid-high level in the L H-H stimuli with nonfinal accent was heldconstant at 145 Hz Again in the corresponding stimuli with final accent there was nosuch mid level section F0 rising smoothly from the target of L to that of H The target

195C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

TABLE 4

F0 steps in Hz for L and H in final and nonfinal accented low rising contours and of H(H-)and H in final and nonfinal accented high rising contours used in Experiment 3

Accent location L H- H Nr of stimuli

Final 80 90 100 ndash 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 80 90 100 145 185 200 215 9

HH- H

Final 130 145 160 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 130 145 160 185 200 215 9

Figure 2

Diagrammatic representations of the stimuli used in Experiment 2 Nonfinal-accented L H-H is given in panel a final-accented L H-H in panel b nonfinal-accented H H-H inpanel c and final-accented H H-H in panel d

196 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for T began at one-tenth of the duration of the vowel after the CV boundary followingan 80ms rise in the case of H and a 20 ms fall in the case of L each starting at 100Hzthe end point of the prehead Except in the case of the final word duur the target of Lwas 80 ms long The target for H- after L and that of HH- (which have a single F0) ceased100ms before the target of H The end point of the final rise was located at the pointwhere the F0 reached a peak in the original contour which resulted in final voiced levelstretches varying from 0 (duur) to 70 ms (afgekomen) The target for L on duur lasted100 ms which left 80 ms for the final rise As before these values were arrived at on thebasis of the naturally spoken utterances and informal judgments of the naturalness of theartif icial contours

The total number of stimuli was 72 (2 contours acute 9 versions acute 4 sentences) We added24 fillers equally divided over the four source utterances with a variety of realization ofa L H L-H (ie a rising -falling -rising) contour This was done in order to increasethe intonational variety in the test These 96 items were randomized twice and each orderwas recorded onto digital tape preceded by ten practice stimuli of which the first eightwere identif ied as such in the instruction sheet and followed by two closing stimuli TheInter-Stimulus Interval was 45s The 108 stimuli (4 sentences acute 2 contours acute 9 versions=72 + 10 practice stimuli + 2 closing stimuli + 24 fillers) were presented in seven blocks of15 and one block of 3 Each block corresponded to a page on the answer sheet and waspreceded by a brief excerpt from a piano recital to give listeners an opportunity to relaxand turn the page The musical excerpt was followed by a 6 s pause and an anchor stimuluswhich was a pronunciation of the phrase Maal honderdTIEN ( lsquotimes a hundred -and -tenrsquo) produced by the same speaker who produced the source utterances realized with aL H L-H contour with a peak of 144 Hz and a low baseline of 110 Hz The degree ofsurprise realized in this anchor stimulus was said to lie exactly halfway on the scale InExperiment 1 we had an anchor stimulus before every stimulus This seemed to usunnecessary by the time we were designing Experiment 3 Pilot research without any anchorstimuli by Hedi Klein Tank had shown that for each page in the answer booklet the variancein the scores was positively correlated with serial position on the page It would appeartherefore that without anchors judges lose some of their orientation on the scale at theturn of each page Anchoring the scale at exactly those points in the test would thus seemto be the appropriate procedure

Two groups of subjects aged between 19 and 30 were recruited from the studentpopulation of Nijmegen one consisting of 15 and the other of 14 subjects The two tapeseach with a different random order of the stimuli were played at a comfortable volume vialoudspeakers to the two groups of subjects Judges were asked to rate the degree of surpriseexpressed by the intonation of each stimulus by placing a mark on a 100mm scale as inExperiment I They were paid a small fee

Results

Scores were obtained as for Experiment 1 An Analysis of Variance (repeated measures)was carried out to assess the influence of the independent variables on the scores Fourwithin -subject factors were included in the design ACCENT- LOCATION (early late)CONTOUR (L H-H vs H H-H) HEIGHT-OF-T (3 levels) and HEIGHT-OF-H (3 levels) In order to have an appropriate ratio between the number of independent

197C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

variables and the number of subjects scores were pooled over the four sentences nestedunder ACCENT- LOCATION Adopting a significance level of 05 we found the followingsignificant main effects CONTOUR F (128)= 1281 p= 001 HEIGHT-OF -TF(256)=5997 plt 001 and HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)=2603 plt 001 Two-way inter-actions were obtained for ACCENT- LOCATION CONTOUR F(256)= 6317 plt 001ACCENT- LOCATION acute HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)= 1187 plt001 and CONTOURacute HEIGHT-OF-T F (256)= 504 p=01 Where appropriate all significance levels wereHuynh-Feldt corrected

The important result here is the interaction between CONTOUR and HEIGHT-OF-T It indicates that raising the beginning of the rise does not have the same effect in thelow rise as it has in the high rise In order to assess the extent to which the scores variedas a function of the beginning of the rise in the L H-H and H H-H contours a trendanalysis (SPSS-MANOVA) was carried out on the data with a polynomial fitted consistingof a linear and a quadratic component An overall linear component as a function ofHEIGHT-OF-T was found to be significant F(128)= 7503 plt001 which interactedsignificantly with the factor CONTOUR F(128)= 810 p=008 The quadratic componentwas not significant

Figure 3 in which the scores for L and H are plotted for different levels of Hshows the crucial interaction graphically Data are pooled over four sentences In the toppanel we see that the lowest value (130 Hz) for H resulted in the lowest level of perceivedsurprise while the highest value (160Hz) expresses the highest degree In the bottom panelthe inverse relation is apparent for L Also the constant effect of H can be clearly seenin both contour types the degree of perceived surprise increases with increasing values ofH with only the stimuli combining L = 80 Hz and H= 185 Hz falling somewhat abovethe expected location

Discussion

The results of Experiment 3 replicate those obtained for perceived surprise in Experiment 2The conclusion must be that ldquohigh risesrdquo and ldquolow risesrdquo form separate phonological cate-gories in Dutch and moreover that ldquolow risesrdquo begin with L and ldquohigh risesrdquo begin withH We will return to this finding in the General Discussion

The effect of ACCENT- LOCATION and its significant interactions with CONTOURand HEIGHT-OF-H are of less interest The first interaction is due to the fact thatscores for the high rise are considerably higher for final accents than for nonfinal accentswhile those for the low rise are less affected by accent location and show a less extremebut opposite pattern Figure 4 presents the scores separately for final and nonfinal accents(pooled over two sentences) showing this interaction in nonfinal position high risingcontours convey less surprise than low- rising contours (panels (b) and (d)) while in finalposition this is not the case (cf panels (a) and (c)) Since the most striking data here arethe low scores for the high rise in nonfinal position this result can be explained by the factthat in these contours two relatively small F0- rises are divided over two syllables Bycontrast in the three other conditions the rises are either piled on top of each other (finalaccent) or the first of them is considerably larger (low rise on nonfinal accent) Lastly theinteraction between ACCENT- LOCATION and HEIGHT-OF-H is due to the greaterdifferentiation of the scores for H in final-accented rising stimuli as compared with those

198 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for the corresponding stimuli with nonfinal accents This effect visible in panels (a) and(c) versus (b) and (d) in Figure 4 is most probably to be explained on the basis of the greatersalience of H in rising contours that serve to accent final syllables

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In a series of experiments we investigated the behavior of Dutch rising nuclear contours asa function of changes in pitch range by asking listeners to rate such contours on perceivedattributes believed to be expressed through variations in pitch range Our interest in the firsttwo experiments was in the behavior of L which had been claimed to be lowered withincreasing pitch range The first attribute we investigated prominence (Experiment 1)showed that perceived prominence is not an appropriate response variable since listenersperceive prominence in terms of salient pitch characteristics in the accented syllablerather than of the entire contour as realized over a polysyllabic stretch of speech In effectthey ignored the beginning of the rising movement in contours with final accent and theend in contours with nonfinal accent Experiment 2 which was undertaken to see if oneor more of the attributes ldquosurpriserdquo ldquoinsistencerdquo and ldquoindignationrdquo was perceived as afunction of the entire contour showed that perceived surprise correlated with the pitchrange if pitch range is assumed to be increased by raising H-tones but lowering L Onthe basis of the results of Experiment 3 in which the L H-H contour was compared withthe H H-H contour we found that perceived surprise is higher as the end of the rising

(a)

Figure 3

Perceived surprise as a function of H andH (panel (a)) and L and H (panel (b))

(b)

199C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

contour is higher but that the effect of the beginning of the rising contour in the accentedsyllable depends on whether relative to the preceding pitch it begins low in which casegreater surprise is signaled by lower pitch or high in which case the opposite is true

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these findings First it may not be usefulto consider perceived prominence to be an interesting attribute of a nuclear contour like LH-H or of the nuclear accent L It is of course common to think about pitch accents asdiscrete elements which are either present or absent and to believe that when presentthey have some level of prominence or strength This ldquoaccent strengthrdquo is we like to thinka function of the pitch level and pitch span specifications of the contour (Gussenhoven etal 1997) but it would now appear that information about these specifications cannot alwaysbe obtained by asking listeners to rate syllables (accents words or phrases) for perceivedprominence since these judgments are strongly influenced by the contextually determinedshape of the pitch contour in the accented syllable such that final and nonfinal accentedsyllables may receive very different reactions even if the pitch targets are identical

Figure 4

Perceived surprise as a function of H and H (top panels) and of L and H (bottom panels)for stimuli with final accents (panels (a) and (c)) and nonfinal accents (panels (b) and (d))separately

200 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Second one way in which speakers can convey surprise in Dutch is by increasing thepitch range as conceived by Liberman -Pierrehumbert lowering L and raising H-tones(A caveat is in order for speaker gender our results are based on the evaluation of malespeech) There are reports however that suggest that L- tones go up when the pitch rangeis increased Erickson Honda Hirai Beckman and Niimi (1994) show that increased levelsof vocal effort (soft voice normal voice loud voice) correlate with F0 of L in English theloud voice has the highest L- tones These findings are not contradictory however if thedistinction between pitch level and pitch span (Ladd 1996 p 260) is observed Restrictingourselves to within -speaker variation the strategy of overall raising of the pitch level whichwould only appear to be possible for the whole contour should perhaps be associated withhigher levels of arousal As was observed in the Discussion for Experiment 2 indignationis possibly expressed in this way as can be concluded on the basis of our finding thathigher targets for L lead to higher perceived indignation in two of the three types of stimuliAlso ldquospeaking uprdquo may employ this type of variation as suggested by the results ofErickson et al (1994) where the overall pitch raising may be seen as due to the effort toproduce a signal that carries over a greater distance By contrast expansion of the pitchspan is more appropriate for increases in what we might call intonational ldquoexplicitnessrdquoto be used when expressing emphasis or surprise and possibly in utterances that serve ascorrections of earlier utterances that were misunderstood or to listeners who are (believedto be) hard of hearing

The third conclusion is most immediately related to the purpose of our experimentsThe results of Experiment 3 provide strong support for the phonological analysis of risesby Pierrehumbert (1980) who described the equivalent American English contours as LH -H (low rise) and H H- H (high rise) respectively In combination with theassumption made in Liberman and Pierrehumbert (1984) that L is lowered but H-tonesraised when the pitch range is increased that analysis accurately explains the resultsobtained That is L H H and H H-H are categorically distinct contours of DutchThe alternative interpretation by which the contours corresponding to these transcriptionsform a single phonological class and represent different realizations varying merely ingradient pitch range must be excluded If our stimuli represented different realizations ofthe same phonological contour we would have expected the phonetic variation from highto low pitch in the accented syllable to have a uniform effect on the perception of the gradientattribute ldquosurpriserdquo

We must be careful to restrict our hypothesis that increased pitch span is achieved bylowering F0 to starred L- tones in Dutch Other L- tones may not behave in the same wayIndeed Fant and Kruckenberg (1994) found for Swedish that greater emphasis causes thelow F0 of Accent 2 to be lower but the low F0 for Accent 1 as well as all other targets tobe higher suggesting that not all L- tones are treated alike As observed by Ladd(forthcoming) the standard analysis (eg Bruce 1990) which analyzes Accent 1 as HLand Accent 2 as HL does not predict this result since one would sooner expect the L ofAccent 1 than the unstarred L- tone of Accent 2 to define the lower boundary of the pitchspan and thus be lowered with increased emphasis

Because the terms ldquohigh riserdquo and ldquolow riserdquo have been used in slightly differentmeanings we should be careful to prevent our results from being generalized to other distinc-tions In descriptions of British English ldquohigh risesrdquo are usually distinguished from ldquolow

201C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

risesrdquo on the basis of the end point For instance Halliday (1970) and OrsquoConnor and Arnold(1973) identify a rise from midlow to high (the ldquohigh riserdquo) as well as one from low tomidlow (the ldquolow riserdquo) Tench (1996) distinguishes low neutral and high rises on thebasis of the end point Crystal (1969) distinguishes three beginning points (high mediumlow) and three excursion sizes (wide normal narrow) to give nine categorically differentrises We believe that the rises described by these authors are versions of the L H-(H)contour with different pitch ranges Indeed the spoken illustrations accompanyingHalliday (1970) sound like such contours although the high rise is described as having amidlow beginning Cruttenden (1997 pp 51ndash 52) recognizes a (British) ldquolow riserdquo (ielow- range L L- H) as a category distinct from H H-H but suggests that wide-range L H-H and H H-H should be seen as a single category He also suggests thatH H-H is frequent in General American but has a low frequency of occurrence in BritishEnglish where the (British) ldquolow riserdquo tends to be used instead (see also 1997 pp 88 99)Cruttenden (1995) points out that utterance -final rises are on the increase in SouthernBritish speech among which there may well be ldquohigh risesrdquo (see also House 1998)

The description of Dutch intonation offered in rsquot Hart et al (1990) which makes nodistinction between the ldquohigh riserdquo and the ldquolow riserdquo could be modified so as to allow thecombination ldquo3rdquo (a late accent-lending rise) with ldquo2rdquo (equivalent to H) instead of justwith ldquoCrdquo (a nonaccent-lending fall) The combination ldquo32rdquo would then correspond to theldquolow riserdquo while ldquo12rdquo would represent only the ldquohigh riserdquo The description of Gussenhoven(1988 1991) which produces on a contour inventory based on phonological variations onthree basic pitch accents without ever producing a contour like the ldquohigh riserdquo should beaugmented with the contour H H which transcription adequately describes the two targetsof the ldquohigh riserdquo (see also Footnote 1)

Finally a more general conclusion In Experiment 3 we have seen how an investi-gation of the perceptual effects of pitch range led to a confirmation of a particular tonalanalysis of rising intonations This illustrates the importance of basing our data on as widea range of observations as possible The consideration of pitch range variation appears notonly to be relevant for studying models of phonetic implementation (cf Liberman ampPierrehumbert 1984) but also for models of phonological structure Indeed GrabeGussenhoven Haan Marsi and Post (1997) illustrates how studying the perception ofspeaker attitudes can lead to meaningful conclusions about intonational structure Theincreased interest for intonational meaning that seems to be detectable in experimentalresearch may therefore well lead to an improved understanding of morphology andphonology of intonation

Received January 18 1999 revised manuscript received September 22 1999 accepted December 6 1999

202 H and L in Dutch rising contours

REFERENCES

BARD E G ROBERTSON D amp SORACE A (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic accept-ability Language 72 32ndash68

BECKMAN M amp PIERREHUMBERT J B (1986) Intonational structure in English and JapanesePhonological Yearbook 3 255ndash310

BOERSMA P amp WEENINK D lthttpfonsg3letuvanlpraatgtBRUCE G (1990) Alignment and composition of tonal accents Comments on Silverman and

Pierrehumbertrsquos paper In J Kingston amp M Beckman (Eds) Papers in laboratory phonologyBetween the grammar and physics of speech (pp107ndash 114) Cambridge UK CambridgeUniversity Press

COLLIER R amp rsquot HART J (1980) Cursus Nederlandse IntonateLouvain AccoCOLLINS B amp MEES I (1981) The sounds of English The Hague Leiden University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1997) Intonation (2nd ed) Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1995) Rises in English In J Windsor Lewis (Ed) Studies in general and English

phonetics (pp155ndash173) London RoutledgeCRYSTAL D (1969) Prosodic systems and intonation in English Cambridge UK Cambridge

University PressERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H BECKMAN M E amp NIIMI S (1994) Global pitch range

and the production of low tones in English intonation International Conference on the Processingof Spoken Language 3 651ndash654

ERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H amp BECKMAN M E (1996) The production of low tonesin English intonation Journal of Phonetics 23 179ndash188

FANT G amp KRUCKENBERG A (1994) Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish SpeedTransmission Laboratorymdash Quarterly Status and Progress Report 2ndash 3 (pp125ndash 144) Alsopublished in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody 1994 Yokohama Japan

GRABE E GUSSENHOVEN C HAAN J MARSI E amp POST B (1997) Preaccentual pitch andspeaker attitude in Dutch Language and Speech 41 63ndash85

GUSSENHOVEN C (1988) Adequacy in intonation analysis The case of Dutch In H van der Hulstamp N Smith (Eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology (pp95ndash121) DordrechtForis

GUSSENHOVEN C (1991) Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch In T F Shannon amp J P Snapper(Eds) The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp139ndash 155) Lanham MDUniversity Press of America

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1988) Fundamental frequency declination in DutchTesting three hypotheses Journal of Phonetics 16 355ndash369

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1991) An experimental evaluation of two nuclear tonetaxonomies Linguistics 29 423ndash449

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1992) A target-interpolation model for the intonation of DutchICSLP2 (pp1235ndash1238)

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1997) Empirical evidence for the contrast between L andH in Dutch rising contours In A Botinis G Kouroupetroglou amp G Caryannis (Eds) Inton-ation Theory models and application Proceedings of ESCA workshop (pp169ndash172) AthensESCA and University of Athens

GUSSENHOVEN C REPP B H RIETVELD T RUMP H H amp TERKEN J (1997) The perceptualprominence of fundamental frequency peaks Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1023009ndash3022

HALLIDAY M A K (1970) IntonationLondon Oxford University Pressrsquot HART J COLLIER R amp COHEN A (1990) A perceptual study of intonation An experimental

phonetic approach Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressHOUSE J (1998) Review of Tench (1996) English Language and Linguistics 2 137ndash139

191C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

prominence judgments only when the accent was located on a final syllable A possibleexplanation of these results would focus on the perceived prominence as the dependentvariable prominence may be interpreted locally and judgments may be triggered by themost salient feature in the accented syllable In the case of prominence judgments madeon the basis of L H L- L contours the cue provided by the height of the peak argu-ably the most salient feature is judged more consistently (barring the effect of the contourrsquosbeginning pitch which may determine the perception of the pitch range and barring theeffect of declination which causes later peaks to have less prominence and lower pitch(Gussenhoven et al 1997 Pierrehumbert 1979)) since the starting point of the rise andthe end point of the fall both happen to be in or near the accented syllable regardless ofthe location of the accent It seemed better therefore to look for a dependent variable whichis signaled by means of variations in pitch range but which listeners might respond to ina way that does not draw their attention to the physical shape of the contour Experiment 2was undertaken to find such a response variable

EXPERIMENT 2 LOOKING FOR A NEW RESPONSE VARIABLE

Method

The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the effect of variation in the F0 of LH- and H on the perception of a number of attributes which we hypothesized dependedon pitch range variation Basing ourselves on intuition we selected three attributes SURPRISEINSISTENCE and INDIGNATION Again our hypothesis was that for each of these attributeslower values of L and higher values of H- and H would result in higher scores Becauseour materials in Experiment 1 were somewhat limited both in the number of sourceutterances (two) and in syntactic structure (both were syntactic declaratives) we augmentedthe old stimuli with a new set based on two new utterances representing syntactic questionsspoken by the same speaker These utterances were provided with artif icial intonationcontours and overall speech rate following the same specifications as in Experiment 1 (seeTable 1) The new source utterances were pronunciations of sentences [3] and [4] belowwhich had durations of 1027 ms and 1492ms respectively

3 Is honderd gulden niet VEELlsquoIsnrsquot a hundred guilders a lotrsquo

TABLE 2

Mean prominence scores for each F0 step listed in order of increasing F0 in three stimulus setsSignificant factors are listed in the last column

L H- H

Targets in HzAccent location 80 90 100 120 130 140 140 150 160 plt05

Set 1 Final 532 541 504 ndash 510 525 541 H Set 2 Nonfinal 612 572 526 ndash 569 574 564 L Set 3 Nonfinal 632 604 568 626 597 582 ndash L

192 H and L in Dutch rising contours

4 Zijn er niet MEER mensen op afgekomenlsquoHavenrsquot more people comersquo

We prepared four test tapes Two of these contained the stimuli used in Experiment 1Sets 1 2 and 3 based on utterances 1 and 2 totaling 9 (stimuli per set) acute 3 (sets) or 27stimuli These 27 stimuli were randomized four times and recorded onto two digital tapessuch that each tape contained 54 test stimuli These were preceded on each tape by a set ofseven practice stimuli and followed by two filler stimuli so that the resulting 63 (ie 54+2+ 7) stimuli per tape could be blocked in nine groups of seven A block began with a 750mswarning signal followed by a 3s pause corresponding to a new page of the response bookletEach stimulus was presented three times with two 2 s intervals followed by a 6s pause Inthe same way two tapes were prepared that contained the stimuli based on utterances 3and 4 The total duration of each test tape was 13mins

The response booklets gave three scales for each stimulus each printed as ahyphenated series of numerals from 1 to 105 Each of the three scales was preceded by oneof the following descriptions always in this order6

yen the speaker expresses his surpriseyen the speaker insists on receiving an answer yen the speaker vents his indignation

Thirty-two judges whose ages ranged from 19 to 32 and who were equally dividedover both sexes were recruited among students and staff of the University of NijmegenThey were split into four groups of eight divided four-four or three- five over the two sexesThey were paid a small fee The four tapes were played to the four groups of judges overheadphones in a language laboratory They were instructed to judge the extent to whicheach stimulus conveyed the meanings given in the labels by circling one of the numeralsmaking up the corresponding scale Judges were encouraged to time the recording of theirjudgments in tune with the repetitions of each stimulus and to try and use the full rangeof the scales

Results

There were three missing data points which were supplied by taking the median of thescores for the item concerned within the group of eight judges Raw scores obtained in thefour tests were pooled For each of the three response categories separate Analyses ofVariance for each of the three stimulus sets were carried out (repeated measures onlyHuynh-Feldt corrected significance levels are reported) Within - factors for sets 1 and 2were the scores for L and H and for set 3 those for L and H- In the case of SURPRISEsignificant effects for L and H were observed in all cases (L set 1 F(262)= 1483plt001 L set 2 F(262)= 1963 plt001 L set 3 F(262)= 775 p=002 H set 1F(262)= 1126 plt001 H set 2 F(262)= 2165 plt001 but the scores for H- in set 3

5 It was felt that the transfer of scores from three uncalibrated scales might be unreasonably time-consuming and possibly error-prone which is the reason we opted for the 10-points scales

6 The Dutch labels were respectively ldquoDe spreker drukt zijn verbazing uitrdquo ldquoDe spreker dringtaan op een antwoordrdquo and ldquoDe spreker geeft blijk van verontwaardigingrdquo

193C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

were not significant In the case of the response variable INSISTENCE there was a significanteffect for H in set 1 the set with final accent (H set 1 F(262)=764 plt01) In the datafor INDIGNATION the factor L was significant in set 2 the set with nonfinal accent withvariable H (L set 2 F(262)= 574 plt01) There were no significant interactions Table3 lists mean scores per F0 variable separately for each stimulus set for the three responsevariables Significant factors are listed in the last column

Conclusion

The results of Experiment 2 suggest that the attributes INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION are notperceived in accordance with the hypothesis that these dependent variables correlate withvariations in pitch range whereby pitch range can be increased by lowering L and raisingH- and H In fact the scores for the significant factor L in set 1 for INDIGNATION showa pattern which is the inverse of what we had expected to find in these data increasedperceived Indignation corresponding to higher values for L This result would appear toconfirm the conclusion of Mozziconacci (1998 p 121) that INDIGNATION is a perceptualattribute of ldquo12rdquo (in IPO-notation) that is H H-H contours with high pitch level andlarge pitch ranges The positive correlation between the F0 of L and perceived indignationmay point to a different type of manipulation of the pitch range in indignant speech thanin surprised speech Indignant speech may be cued by raising what Ladd (1996) calls theoverall pitch level instead of the pitch span

In contrast to the results for INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION the attribute SURPRISE

produced scores which were consistently in agreement with our hypothesis It is possiblethat the poor results for INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION were in part due the fact that these

TABLE 3

Mean SURPRISE INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION scores for each F0 step listed in order of increas-ing F0 in three stimulus sets

L H- H

Target in Hz Accent location 80 90 100 120 130 140 140 150 160 plt05

SurpriseSet 1 Final 537 468 426 ndash 426 484 521 L HSet 2 Nonfinal 559 525 445 ndash 447 518 563 L HSet 3 Nonfinal 625 590 570 563 574 648 ndash L

InsistenceSet 1 Final 545 538 537 ndash 528 510 582 ndashSet 2 Nonfinal 615 617 655 ndash 620 626 641 HSet 3 Nonfinal 616 625 627 622 623 623 ndash ndash

IndignationSet 1 Final 465 482 506 ndash 482 498 473 ndashSet 2 Nonfinal 432 468 512 ndash 500 458 455 LSet 3 Nonfinal 417 421 403 413 417 411 ndash ndash

194 H and L in Dutch rising contours

scales occupied the second and third positions respectively on the response sheets Theattention of the judges may well have slackened off after they had filled in the SURPRISE

scale which headed the list of three scales for each stimulus With hindsight it might havebeen better to present the stimuli separately for each response variable This would alsohave made it possible to include anchor stimuli as in Experiment 1 the omission of whichmay have contributed to the more erratic nature of the scores in Experiment 2

The aim of Experiment 2 was to find a response variable that depended on the pitchspan of the contour as conceived in the way outlined above and on the basis of these resultstherefore Experiment 3 can take as its starting point an appropriately refined hypothesiswith ldquoperceived surpriserdquo as the response variable Although it was not our purpose toestablish the full spectrum of attitudinal or emotional effects of different pitch range manip-ulations future research might well further explore the effects of pitch level and pitch spanin signaling of speaker attitudes and emotions

EXPERIMENT 3 PITTING L AGAINST H

Method

The purpose of Experiment 3 was to replicate the results obtained in Experiment 2 forSURPRISE and moreover to show that high rise contours analyzed as H H-H behave inthe same way as low rise contours for this dependent variable with the crucial exceptionthat lower beginnings of the high rise cause the utterance to express less surprise insteadof more as found for L in Experiment 2 To this end a different male speaker of Dutchrecorded the four sentences of Experiment 2 each spoken with an unemphatic weakly risingpitch accent on digital tape The durations were

1 Een nieuwe motor is te DUUR 1234ms

2 Je was al EERder bij hem geweest 1432ms

3 Is honderd gulden niet VEEL 1224ms

4 Zijn er niet MEER mensen op afgekomen 1608ms

Since the speech rate of these new utterances was some 20 faster than that of theutterances used for Experiment 1 the speech rate was left unchanged The F0 was artif i-cially manipulated with the help of the P-SOLA program made available in PRAAT Wedecided not to vary the F0 of H- in this test because the H H-H contours do not havea separate pitch target corresponding to H- and inclusion of this variable in the low risecontours would thus have introduced an imbalance in our experiment We used substan-tially higher values for H- and for the three steps for H as the old values produced asomewhat dull effect in these new utterances which we feared would have led to a crowdingof scores at the low end of the scale Table 4 gives the F0 values we used while diagram-matic representations of the stimuli are given in Figure 2

Since the variation in the F0 of the starred tone (3 steps) was crossed with the variationin the F0 of H (3 steps) there were nine stimuli for each source utterance The F0 of thepost-accentual mid-high level in the L H-H stimuli with nonfinal accent was heldconstant at 145 Hz Again in the corresponding stimuli with final accent there was nosuch mid level section F0 rising smoothly from the target of L to that of H The target

195C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

TABLE 4

F0 steps in Hz for L and H in final and nonfinal accented low rising contours and of H(H-)and H in final and nonfinal accented high rising contours used in Experiment 3

Accent location L H- H Nr of stimuli

Final 80 90 100 ndash 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 80 90 100 145 185 200 215 9

HH- H

Final 130 145 160 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 130 145 160 185 200 215 9

Figure 2

Diagrammatic representations of the stimuli used in Experiment 2 Nonfinal-accented L H-H is given in panel a final-accented L H-H in panel b nonfinal-accented H H-H inpanel c and final-accented H H-H in panel d

196 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for T began at one-tenth of the duration of the vowel after the CV boundary followingan 80ms rise in the case of H and a 20 ms fall in the case of L each starting at 100Hzthe end point of the prehead Except in the case of the final word duur the target of Lwas 80 ms long The target for H- after L and that of HH- (which have a single F0) ceased100ms before the target of H The end point of the final rise was located at the pointwhere the F0 reached a peak in the original contour which resulted in final voiced levelstretches varying from 0 (duur) to 70 ms (afgekomen) The target for L on duur lasted100 ms which left 80 ms for the final rise As before these values were arrived at on thebasis of the naturally spoken utterances and informal judgments of the naturalness of theartif icial contours

The total number of stimuli was 72 (2 contours acute 9 versions acute 4 sentences) We added24 fillers equally divided over the four source utterances with a variety of realization ofa L H L-H (ie a rising -falling -rising) contour This was done in order to increasethe intonational variety in the test These 96 items were randomized twice and each orderwas recorded onto digital tape preceded by ten practice stimuli of which the first eightwere identif ied as such in the instruction sheet and followed by two closing stimuli TheInter-Stimulus Interval was 45s The 108 stimuli (4 sentences acute 2 contours acute 9 versions=72 + 10 practice stimuli + 2 closing stimuli + 24 fillers) were presented in seven blocks of15 and one block of 3 Each block corresponded to a page on the answer sheet and waspreceded by a brief excerpt from a piano recital to give listeners an opportunity to relaxand turn the page The musical excerpt was followed by a 6 s pause and an anchor stimuluswhich was a pronunciation of the phrase Maal honderdTIEN ( lsquotimes a hundred -and -tenrsquo) produced by the same speaker who produced the source utterances realized with aL H L-H contour with a peak of 144 Hz and a low baseline of 110 Hz The degree ofsurprise realized in this anchor stimulus was said to lie exactly halfway on the scale InExperiment 1 we had an anchor stimulus before every stimulus This seemed to usunnecessary by the time we were designing Experiment 3 Pilot research without any anchorstimuli by Hedi Klein Tank had shown that for each page in the answer booklet the variancein the scores was positively correlated with serial position on the page It would appeartherefore that without anchors judges lose some of their orientation on the scale at theturn of each page Anchoring the scale at exactly those points in the test would thus seemto be the appropriate procedure

Two groups of subjects aged between 19 and 30 were recruited from the studentpopulation of Nijmegen one consisting of 15 and the other of 14 subjects The two tapeseach with a different random order of the stimuli were played at a comfortable volume vialoudspeakers to the two groups of subjects Judges were asked to rate the degree of surpriseexpressed by the intonation of each stimulus by placing a mark on a 100mm scale as inExperiment I They were paid a small fee

Results

Scores were obtained as for Experiment 1 An Analysis of Variance (repeated measures)was carried out to assess the influence of the independent variables on the scores Fourwithin -subject factors were included in the design ACCENT- LOCATION (early late)CONTOUR (L H-H vs H H-H) HEIGHT-OF-T (3 levels) and HEIGHT-OF-H (3 levels) In order to have an appropriate ratio between the number of independent

197C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

variables and the number of subjects scores were pooled over the four sentences nestedunder ACCENT- LOCATION Adopting a significance level of 05 we found the followingsignificant main effects CONTOUR F (128)= 1281 p= 001 HEIGHT-OF -TF(256)=5997 plt 001 and HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)=2603 plt 001 Two-way inter-actions were obtained for ACCENT- LOCATION CONTOUR F(256)= 6317 plt 001ACCENT- LOCATION acute HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)= 1187 plt001 and CONTOURacute HEIGHT-OF-T F (256)= 504 p=01 Where appropriate all significance levels wereHuynh-Feldt corrected

The important result here is the interaction between CONTOUR and HEIGHT-OF-T It indicates that raising the beginning of the rise does not have the same effect in thelow rise as it has in the high rise In order to assess the extent to which the scores variedas a function of the beginning of the rise in the L H-H and H H-H contours a trendanalysis (SPSS-MANOVA) was carried out on the data with a polynomial fitted consistingof a linear and a quadratic component An overall linear component as a function ofHEIGHT-OF-T was found to be significant F(128)= 7503 plt001 which interactedsignificantly with the factor CONTOUR F(128)= 810 p=008 The quadratic componentwas not significant

Figure 3 in which the scores for L and H are plotted for different levels of Hshows the crucial interaction graphically Data are pooled over four sentences In the toppanel we see that the lowest value (130 Hz) for H resulted in the lowest level of perceivedsurprise while the highest value (160Hz) expresses the highest degree In the bottom panelthe inverse relation is apparent for L Also the constant effect of H can be clearly seenin both contour types the degree of perceived surprise increases with increasing values ofH with only the stimuli combining L = 80 Hz and H= 185 Hz falling somewhat abovethe expected location

Discussion

The results of Experiment 3 replicate those obtained for perceived surprise in Experiment 2The conclusion must be that ldquohigh risesrdquo and ldquolow risesrdquo form separate phonological cate-gories in Dutch and moreover that ldquolow risesrdquo begin with L and ldquohigh risesrdquo begin withH We will return to this finding in the General Discussion

The effect of ACCENT- LOCATION and its significant interactions with CONTOURand HEIGHT-OF-H are of less interest The first interaction is due to the fact thatscores for the high rise are considerably higher for final accents than for nonfinal accentswhile those for the low rise are less affected by accent location and show a less extremebut opposite pattern Figure 4 presents the scores separately for final and nonfinal accents(pooled over two sentences) showing this interaction in nonfinal position high risingcontours convey less surprise than low- rising contours (panels (b) and (d)) while in finalposition this is not the case (cf panels (a) and (c)) Since the most striking data here arethe low scores for the high rise in nonfinal position this result can be explained by the factthat in these contours two relatively small F0- rises are divided over two syllables Bycontrast in the three other conditions the rises are either piled on top of each other (finalaccent) or the first of them is considerably larger (low rise on nonfinal accent) Lastly theinteraction between ACCENT- LOCATION and HEIGHT-OF-H is due to the greaterdifferentiation of the scores for H in final-accented rising stimuli as compared with those

198 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for the corresponding stimuli with nonfinal accents This effect visible in panels (a) and(c) versus (b) and (d) in Figure 4 is most probably to be explained on the basis of the greatersalience of H in rising contours that serve to accent final syllables

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In a series of experiments we investigated the behavior of Dutch rising nuclear contours asa function of changes in pitch range by asking listeners to rate such contours on perceivedattributes believed to be expressed through variations in pitch range Our interest in the firsttwo experiments was in the behavior of L which had been claimed to be lowered withincreasing pitch range The first attribute we investigated prominence (Experiment 1)showed that perceived prominence is not an appropriate response variable since listenersperceive prominence in terms of salient pitch characteristics in the accented syllablerather than of the entire contour as realized over a polysyllabic stretch of speech In effectthey ignored the beginning of the rising movement in contours with final accent and theend in contours with nonfinal accent Experiment 2 which was undertaken to see if oneor more of the attributes ldquosurpriserdquo ldquoinsistencerdquo and ldquoindignationrdquo was perceived as afunction of the entire contour showed that perceived surprise correlated with the pitchrange if pitch range is assumed to be increased by raising H-tones but lowering L Onthe basis of the results of Experiment 3 in which the L H-H contour was compared withthe H H-H contour we found that perceived surprise is higher as the end of the rising

(a)

Figure 3

Perceived surprise as a function of H andH (panel (a)) and L and H (panel (b))

(b)

199C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

contour is higher but that the effect of the beginning of the rising contour in the accentedsyllable depends on whether relative to the preceding pitch it begins low in which casegreater surprise is signaled by lower pitch or high in which case the opposite is true

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these findings First it may not be usefulto consider perceived prominence to be an interesting attribute of a nuclear contour like LH-H or of the nuclear accent L It is of course common to think about pitch accents asdiscrete elements which are either present or absent and to believe that when presentthey have some level of prominence or strength This ldquoaccent strengthrdquo is we like to thinka function of the pitch level and pitch span specifications of the contour (Gussenhoven etal 1997) but it would now appear that information about these specifications cannot alwaysbe obtained by asking listeners to rate syllables (accents words or phrases) for perceivedprominence since these judgments are strongly influenced by the contextually determinedshape of the pitch contour in the accented syllable such that final and nonfinal accentedsyllables may receive very different reactions even if the pitch targets are identical

Figure 4

Perceived surprise as a function of H and H (top panels) and of L and H (bottom panels)for stimuli with final accents (panels (a) and (c)) and nonfinal accents (panels (b) and (d))separately

200 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Second one way in which speakers can convey surprise in Dutch is by increasing thepitch range as conceived by Liberman -Pierrehumbert lowering L and raising H-tones(A caveat is in order for speaker gender our results are based on the evaluation of malespeech) There are reports however that suggest that L- tones go up when the pitch rangeis increased Erickson Honda Hirai Beckman and Niimi (1994) show that increased levelsof vocal effort (soft voice normal voice loud voice) correlate with F0 of L in English theloud voice has the highest L- tones These findings are not contradictory however if thedistinction between pitch level and pitch span (Ladd 1996 p 260) is observed Restrictingourselves to within -speaker variation the strategy of overall raising of the pitch level whichwould only appear to be possible for the whole contour should perhaps be associated withhigher levels of arousal As was observed in the Discussion for Experiment 2 indignationis possibly expressed in this way as can be concluded on the basis of our finding thathigher targets for L lead to higher perceived indignation in two of the three types of stimuliAlso ldquospeaking uprdquo may employ this type of variation as suggested by the results ofErickson et al (1994) where the overall pitch raising may be seen as due to the effort toproduce a signal that carries over a greater distance By contrast expansion of the pitchspan is more appropriate for increases in what we might call intonational ldquoexplicitnessrdquoto be used when expressing emphasis or surprise and possibly in utterances that serve ascorrections of earlier utterances that were misunderstood or to listeners who are (believedto be) hard of hearing

The third conclusion is most immediately related to the purpose of our experimentsThe results of Experiment 3 provide strong support for the phonological analysis of risesby Pierrehumbert (1980) who described the equivalent American English contours as LH -H (low rise) and H H- H (high rise) respectively In combination with theassumption made in Liberman and Pierrehumbert (1984) that L is lowered but H-tonesraised when the pitch range is increased that analysis accurately explains the resultsobtained That is L H H and H H-H are categorically distinct contours of DutchThe alternative interpretation by which the contours corresponding to these transcriptionsform a single phonological class and represent different realizations varying merely ingradient pitch range must be excluded If our stimuli represented different realizations ofthe same phonological contour we would have expected the phonetic variation from highto low pitch in the accented syllable to have a uniform effect on the perception of the gradientattribute ldquosurpriserdquo

We must be careful to restrict our hypothesis that increased pitch span is achieved bylowering F0 to starred L- tones in Dutch Other L- tones may not behave in the same wayIndeed Fant and Kruckenberg (1994) found for Swedish that greater emphasis causes thelow F0 of Accent 2 to be lower but the low F0 for Accent 1 as well as all other targets tobe higher suggesting that not all L- tones are treated alike As observed by Ladd(forthcoming) the standard analysis (eg Bruce 1990) which analyzes Accent 1 as HLand Accent 2 as HL does not predict this result since one would sooner expect the L ofAccent 1 than the unstarred L- tone of Accent 2 to define the lower boundary of the pitchspan and thus be lowered with increased emphasis

Because the terms ldquohigh riserdquo and ldquolow riserdquo have been used in slightly differentmeanings we should be careful to prevent our results from being generalized to other distinc-tions In descriptions of British English ldquohigh risesrdquo are usually distinguished from ldquolow

201C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

risesrdquo on the basis of the end point For instance Halliday (1970) and OrsquoConnor and Arnold(1973) identify a rise from midlow to high (the ldquohigh riserdquo) as well as one from low tomidlow (the ldquolow riserdquo) Tench (1996) distinguishes low neutral and high rises on thebasis of the end point Crystal (1969) distinguishes three beginning points (high mediumlow) and three excursion sizes (wide normal narrow) to give nine categorically differentrises We believe that the rises described by these authors are versions of the L H-(H)contour with different pitch ranges Indeed the spoken illustrations accompanyingHalliday (1970) sound like such contours although the high rise is described as having amidlow beginning Cruttenden (1997 pp 51ndash 52) recognizes a (British) ldquolow riserdquo (ielow- range L L- H) as a category distinct from H H-H but suggests that wide-range L H-H and H H-H should be seen as a single category He also suggests thatH H-H is frequent in General American but has a low frequency of occurrence in BritishEnglish where the (British) ldquolow riserdquo tends to be used instead (see also 1997 pp 88 99)Cruttenden (1995) points out that utterance -final rises are on the increase in SouthernBritish speech among which there may well be ldquohigh risesrdquo (see also House 1998)

The description of Dutch intonation offered in rsquot Hart et al (1990) which makes nodistinction between the ldquohigh riserdquo and the ldquolow riserdquo could be modified so as to allow thecombination ldquo3rdquo (a late accent-lending rise) with ldquo2rdquo (equivalent to H) instead of justwith ldquoCrdquo (a nonaccent-lending fall) The combination ldquo32rdquo would then correspond to theldquolow riserdquo while ldquo12rdquo would represent only the ldquohigh riserdquo The description of Gussenhoven(1988 1991) which produces on a contour inventory based on phonological variations onthree basic pitch accents without ever producing a contour like the ldquohigh riserdquo should beaugmented with the contour H H which transcription adequately describes the two targetsof the ldquohigh riserdquo (see also Footnote 1)

Finally a more general conclusion In Experiment 3 we have seen how an investi-gation of the perceptual effects of pitch range led to a confirmation of a particular tonalanalysis of rising intonations This illustrates the importance of basing our data on as widea range of observations as possible The consideration of pitch range variation appears notonly to be relevant for studying models of phonetic implementation (cf Liberman ampPierrehumbert 1984) but also for models of phonological structure Indeed GrabeGussenhoven Haan Marsi and Post (1997) illustrates how studying the perception ofspeaker attitudes can lead to meaningful conclusions about intonational structure Theincreased interest for intonational meaning that seems to be detectable in experimentalresearch may therefore well lead to an improved understanding of morphology andphonology of intonation

Received January 18 1999 revised manuscript received September 22 1999 accepted December 6 1999

202 H and L in Dutch rising contours

REFERENCES

BARD E G ROBERTSON D amp SORACE A (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic accept-ability Language 72 32ndash68

BECKMAN M amp PIERREHUMBERT J B (1986) Intonational structure in English and JapanesePhonological Yearbook 3 255ndash310

BOERSMA P amp WEENINK D lthttpfonsg3letuvanlpraatgtBRUCE G (1990) Alignment and composition of tonal accents Comments on Silverman and

Pierrehumbertrsquos paper In J Kingston amp M Beckman (Eds) Papers in laboratory phonologyBetween the grammar and physics of speech (pp107ndash 114) Cambridge UK CambridgeUniversity Press

COLLIER R amp rsquot HART J (1980) Cursus Nederlandse IntonateLouvain AccoCOLLINS B amp MEES I (1981) The sounds of English The Hague Leiden University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1997) Intonation (2nd ed) Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1995) Rises in English In J Windsor Lewis (Ed) Studies in general and English

phonetics (pp155ndash173) London RoutledgeCRYSTAL D (1969) Prosodic systems and intonation in English Cambridge UK Cambridge

University PressERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H BECKMAN M E amp NIIMI S (1994) Global pitch range

and the production of low tones in English intonation International Conference on the Processingof Spoken Language 3 651ndash654

ERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H amp BECKMAN M E (1996) The production of low tonesin English intonation Journal of Phonetics 23 179ndash188

FANT G amp KRUCKENBERG A (1994) Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish SpeedTransmission Laboratorymdash Quarterly Status and Progress Report 2ndash 3 (pp125ndash 144) Alsopublished in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody 1994 Yokohama Japan

GRABE E GUSSENHOVEN C HAAN J MARSI E amp POST B (1997) Preaccentual pitch andspeaker attitude in Dutch Language and Speech 41 63ndash85

GUSSENHOVEN C (1988) Adequacy in intonation analysis The case of Dutch In H van der Hulstamp N Smith (Eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology (pp95ndash121) DordrechtForis

GUSSENHOVEN C (1991) Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch In T F Shannon amp J P Snapper(Eds) The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp139ndash 155) Lanham MDUniversity Press of America

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1988) Fundamental frequency declination in DutchTesting three hypotheses Journal of Phonetics 16 355ndash369

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1991) An experimental evaluation of two nuclear tonetaxonomies Linguistics 29 423ndash449

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1992) A target-interpolation model for the intonation of DutchICSLP2 (pp1235ndash1238)

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1997) Empirical evidence for the contrast between L andH in Dutch rising contours In A Botinis G Kouroupetroglou amp G Caryannis (Eds) Inton-ation Theory models and application Proceedings of ESCA workshop (pp169ndash172) AthensESCA and University of Athens

GUSSENHOVEN C REPP B H RIETVELD T RUMP H H amp TERKEN J (1997) The perceptualprominence of fundamental frequency peaks Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1023009ndash3022

HALLIDAY M A K (1970) IntonationLondon Oxford University Pressrsquot HART J COLLIER R amp COHEN A (1990) A perceptual study of intonation An experimental

phonetic approach Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressHOUSE J (1998) Review of Tench (1996) English Language and Linguistics 2 137ndash139

192 H and L in Dutch rising contours

4 Zijn er niet MEER mensen op afgekomenlsquoHavenrsquot more people comersquo

We prepared four test tapes Two of these contained the stimuli used in Experiment 1Sets 1 2 and 3 based on utterances 1 and 2 totaling 9 (stimuli per set) acute 3 (sets) or 27stimuli These 27 stimuli were randomized four times and recorded onto two digital tapessuch that each tape contained 54 test stimuli These were preceded on each tape by a set ofseven practice stimuli and followed by two filler stimuli so that the resulting 63 (ie 54+2+ 7) stimuli per tape could be blocked in nine groups of seven A block began with a 750mswarning signal followed by a 3s pause corresponding to a new page of the response bookletEach stimulus was presented three times with two 2 s intervals followed by a 6s pause Inthe same way two tapes were prepared that contained the stimuli based on utterances 3and 4 The total duration of each test tape was 13mins

The response booklets gave three scales for each stimulus each printed as ahyphenated series of numerals from 1 to 105 Each of the three scales was preceded by oneof the following descriptions always in this order6

yen the speaker expresses his surpriseyen the speaker insists on receiving an answer yen the speaker vents his indignation

Thirty-two judges whose ages ranged from 19 to 32 and who were equally dividedover both sexes were recruited among students and staff of the University of NijmegenThey were split into four groups of eight divided four-four or three- five over the two sexesThey were paid a small fee The four tapes were played to the four groups of judges overheadphones in a language laboratory They were instructed to judge the extent to whicheach stimulus conveyed the meanings given in the labels by circling one of the numeralsmaking up the corresponding scale Judges were encouraged to time the recording of theirjudgments in tune with the repetitions of each stimulus and to try and use the full rangeof the scales

Results

There were three missing data points which were supplied by taking the median of thescores for the item concerned within the group of eight judges Raw scores obtained in thefour tests were pooled For each of the three response categories separate Analyses ofVariance for each of the three stimulus sets were carried out (repeated measures onlyHuynh-Feldt corrected significance levels are reported) Within - factors for sets 1 and 2were the scores for L and H and for set 3 those for L and H- In the case of SURPRISEsignificant effects for L and H were observed in all cases (L set 1 F(262)= 1483plt001 L set 2 F(262)= 1963 plt001 L set 3 F(262)= 775 p=002 H set 1F(262)= 1126 plt001 H set 2 F(262)= 2165 plt001 but the scores for H- in set 3

5 It was felt that the transfer of scores from three uncalibrated scales might be unreasonably time-consuming and possibly error-prone which is the reason we opted for the 10-points scales

6 The Dutch labels were respectively ldquoDe spreker drukt zijn verbazing uitrdquo ldquoDe spreker dringtaan op een antwoordrdquo and ldquoDe spreker geeft blijk van verontwaardigingrdquo

193C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

were not significant In the case of the response variable INSISTENCE there was a significanteffect for H in set 1 the set with final accent (H set 1 F(262)=764 plt01) In the datafor INDIGNATION the factor L was significant in set 2 the set with nonfinal accent withvariable H (L set 2 F(262)= 574 plt01) There were no significant interactions Table3 lists mean scores per F0 variable separately for each stimulus set for the three responsevariables Significant factors are listed in the last column

Conclusion

The results of Experiment 2 suggest that the attributes INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION are notperceived in accordance with the hypothesis that these dependent variables correlate withvariations in pitch range whereby pitch range can be increased by lowering L and raisingH- and H In fact the scores for the significant factor L in set 1 for INDIGNATION showa pattern which is the inverse of what we had expected to find in these data increasedperceived Indignation corresponding to higher values for L This result would appear toconfirm the conclusion of Mozziconacci (1998 p 121) that INDIGNATION is a perceptualattribute of ldquo12rdquo (in IPO-notation) that is H H-H contours with high pitch level andlarge pitch ranges The positive correlation between the F0 of L and perceived indignationmay point to a different type of manipulation of the pitch range in indignant speech thanin surprised speech Indignant speech may be cued by raising what Ladd (1996) calls theoverall pitch level instead of the pitch span

In contrast to the results for INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION the attribute SURPRISE

produced scores which were consistently in agreement with our hypothesis It is possiblethat the poor results for INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION were in part due the fact that these

TABLE 3

Mean SURPRISE INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION scores for each F0 step listed in order of increas-ing F0 in three stimulus sets

L H- H

Target in Hz Accent location 80 90 100 120 130 140 140 150 160 plt05

SurpriseSet 1 Final 537 468 426 ndash 426 484 521 L HSet 2 Nonfinal 559 525 445 ndash 447 518 563 L HSet 3 Nonfinal 625 590 570 563 574 648 ndash L

InsistenceSet 1 Final 545 538 537 ndash 528 510 582 ndashSet 2 Nonfinal 615 617 655 ndash 620 626 641 HSet 3 Nonfinal 616 625 627 622 623 623 ndash ndash

IndignationSet 1 Final 465 482 506 ndash 482 498 473 ndashSet 2 Nonfinal 432 468 512 ndash 500 458 455 LSet 3 Nonfinal 417 421 403 413 417 411 ndash ndash

194 H and L in Dutch rising contours

scales occupied the second and third positions respectively on the response sheets Theattention of the judges may well have slackened off after they had filled in the SURPRISE

scale which headed the list of three scales for each stimulus With hindsight it might havebeen better to present the stimuli separately for each response variable This would alsohave made it possible to include anchor stimuli as in Experiment 1 the omission of whichmay have contributed to the more erratic nature of the scores in Experiment 2

The aim of Experiment 2 was to find a response variable that depended on the pitchspan of the contour as conceived in the way outlined above and on the basis of these resultstherefore Experiment 3 can take as its starting point an appropriately refined hypothesiswith ldquoperceived surpriserdquo as the response variable Although it was not our purpose toestablish the full spectrum of attitudinal or emotional effects of different pitch range manip-ulations future research might well further explore the effects of pitch level and pitch spanin signaling of speaker attitudes and emotions

EXPERIMENT 3 PITTING L AGAINST H

Method

The purpose of Experiment 3 was to replicate the results obtained in Experiment 2 forSURPRISE and moreover to show that high rise contours analyzed as H H-H behave inthe same way as low rise contours for this dependent variable with the crucial exceptionthat lower beginnings of the high rise cause the utterance to express less surprise insteadof more as found for L in Experiment 2 To this end a different male speaker of Dutchrecorded the four sentences of Experiment 2 each spoken with an unemphatic weakly risingpitch accent on digital tape The durations were

1 Een nieuwe motor is te DUUR 1234ms

2 Je was al EERder bij hem geweest 1432ms

3 Is honderd gulden niet VEEL 1224ms

4 Zijn er niet MEER mensen op afgekomen 1608ms

Since the speech rate of these new utterances was some 20 faster than that of theutterances used for Experiment 1 the speech rate was left unchanged The F0 was artif i-cially manipulated with the help of the P-SOLA program made available in PRAAT Wedecided not to vary the F0 of H- in this test because the H H-H contours do not havea separate pitch target corresponding to H- and inclusion of this variable in the low risecontours would thus have introduced an imbalance in our experiment We used substan-tially higher values for H- and for the three steps for H as the old values produced asomewhat dull effect in these new utterances which we feared would have led to a crowdingof scores at the low end of the scale Table 4 gives the F0 values we used while diagram-matic representations of the stimuli are given in Figure 2

Since the variation in the F0 of the starred tone (3 steps) was crossed with the variationin the F0 of H (3 steps) there were nine stimuli for each source utterance The F0 of thepost-accentual mid-high level in the L H-H stimuli with nonfinal accent was heldconstant at 145 Hz Again in the corresponding stimuli with final accent there was nosuch mid level section F0 rising smoothly from the target of L to that of H The target

195C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

TABLE 4

F0 steps in Hz for L and H in final and nonfinal accented low rising contours and of H(H-)and H in final and nonfinal accented high rising contours used in Experiment 3

Accent location L H- H Nr of stimuli

Final 80 90 100 ndash 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 80 90 100 145 185 200 215 9

HH- H

Final 130 145 160 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 130 145 160 185 200 215 9

Figure 2

Diagrammatic representations of the stimuli used in Experiment 2 Nonfinal-accented L H-H is given in panel a final-accented L H-H in panel b nonfinal-accented H H-H inpanel c and final-accented H H-H in panel d

196 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for T began at one-tenth of the duration of the vowel after the CV boundary followingan 80ms rise in the case of H and a 20 ms fall in the case of L each starting at 100Hzthe end point of the prehead Except in the case of the final word duur the target of Lwas 80 ms long The target for H- after L and that of HH- (which have a single F0) ceased100ms before the target of H The end point of the final rise was located at the pointwhere the F0 reached a peak in the original contour which resulted in final voiced levelstretches varying from 0 (duur) to 70 ms (afgekomen) The target for L on duur lasted100 ms which left 80 ms for the final rise As before these values were arrived at on thebasis of the naturally spoken utterances and informal judgments of the naturalness of theartif icial contours

The total number of stimuli was 72 (2 contours acute 9 versions acute 4 sentences) We added24 fillers equally divided over the four source utterances with a variety of realization ofa L H L-H (ie a rising -falling -rising) contour This was done in order to increasethe intonational variety in the test These 96 items were randomized twice and each orderwas recorded onto digital tape preceded by ten practice stimuli of which the first eightwere identif ied as such in the instruction sheet and followed by two closing stimuli TheInter-Stimulus Interval was 45s The 108 stimuli (4 sentences acute 2 contours acute 9 versions=72 + 10 practice stimuli + 2 closing stimuli + 24 fillers) were presented in seven blocks of15 and one block of 3 Each block corresponded to a page on the answer sheet and waspreceded by a brief excerpt from a piano recital to give listeners an opportunity to relaxand turn the page The musical excerpt was followed by a 6 s pause and an anchor stimuluswhich was a pronunciation of the phrase Maal honderdTIEN ( lsquotimes a hundred -and -tenrsquo) produced by the same speaker who produced the source utterances realized with aL H L-H contour with a peak of 144 Hz and a low baseline of 110 Hz The degree ofsurprise realized in this anchor stimulus was said to lie exactly halfway on the scale InExperiment 1 we had an anchor stimulus before every stimulus This seemed to usunnecessary by the time we were designing Experiment 3 Pilot research without any anchorstimuli by Hedi Klein Tank had shown that for each page in the answer booklet the variancein the scores was positively correlated with serial position on the page It would appeartherefore that without anchors judges lose some of their orientation on the scale at theturn of each page Anchoring the scale at exactly those points in the test would thus seemto be the appropriate procedure

Two groups of subjects aged between 19 and 30 were recruited from the studentpopulation of Nijmegen one consisting of 15 and the other of 14 subjects The two tapeseach with a different random order of the stimuli were played at a comfortable volume vialoudspeakers to the two groups of subjects Judges were asked to rate the degree of surpriseexpressed by the intonation of each stimulus by placing a mark on a 100mm scale as inExperiment I They were paid a small fee

Results

Scores were obtained as for Experiment 1 An Analysis of Variance (repeated measures)was carried out to assess the influence of the independent variables on the scores Fourwithin -subject factors were included in the design ACCENT- LOCATION (early late)CONTOUR (L H-H vs H H-H) HEIGHT-OF-T (3 levels) and HEIGHT-OF-H (3 levels) In order to have an appropriate ratio between the number of independent

197C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

variables and the number of subjects scores were pooled over the four sentences nestedunder ACCENT- LOCATION Adopting a significance level of 05 we found the followingsignificant main effects CONTOUR F (128)= 1281 p= 001 HEIGHT-OF -TF(256)=5997 plt 001 and HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)=2603 plt 001 Two-way inter-actions were obtained for ACCENT- LOCATION CONTOUR F(256)= 6317 plt 001ACCENT- LOCATION acute HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)= 1187 plt001 and CONTOURacute HEIGHT-OF-T F (256)= 504 p=01 Where appropriate all significance levels wereHuynh-Feldt corrected

The important result here is the interaction between CONTOUR and HEIGHT-OF-T It indicates that raising the beginning of the rise does not have the same effect in thelow rise as it has in the high rise In order to assess the extent to which the scores variedas a function of the beginning of the rise in the L H-H and H H-H contours a trendanalysis (SPSS-MANOVA) was carried out on the data with a polynomial fitted consistingof a linear and a quadratic component An overall linear component as a function ofHEIGHT-OF-T was found to be significant F(128)= 7503 plt001 which interactedsignificantly with the factor CONTOUR F(128)= 810 p=008 The quadratic componentwas not significant

Figure 3 in which the scores for L and H are plotted for different levels of Hshows the crucial interaction graphically Data are pooled over four sentences In the toppanel we see that the lowest value (130 Hz) for H resulted in the lowest level of perceivedsurprise while the highest value (160Hz) expresses the highest degree In the bottom panelthe inverse relation is apparent for L Also the constant effect of H can be clearly seenin both contour types the degree of perceived surprise increases with increasing values ofH with only the stimuli combining L = 80 Hz and H= 185 Hz falling somewhat abovethe expected location

Discussion

The results of Experiment 3 replicate those obtained for perceived surprise in Experiment 2The conclusion must be that ldquohigh risesrdquo and ldquolow risesrdquo form separate phonological cate-gories in Dutch and moreover that ldquolow risesrdquo begin with L and ldquohigh risesrdquo begin withH We will return to this finding in the General Discussion

The effect of ACCENT- LOCATION and its significant interactions with CONTOURand HEIGHT-OF-H are of less interest The first interaction is due to the fact thatscores for the high rise are considerably higher for final accents than for nonfinal accentswhile those for the low rise are less affected by accent location and show a less extremebut opposite pattern Figure 4 presents the scores separately for final and nonfinal accents(pooled over two sentences) showing this interaction in nonfinal position high risingcontours convey less surprise than low- rising contours (panels (b) and (d)) while in finalposition this is not the case (cf panels (a) and (c)) Since the most striking data here arethe low scores for the high rise in nonfinal position this result can be explained by the factthat in these contours two relatively small F0- rises are divided over two syllables Bycontrast in the three other conditions the rises are either piled on top of each other (finalaccent) or the first of them is considerably larger (low rise on nonfinal accent) Lastly theinteraction between ACCENT- LOCATION and HEIGHT-OF-H is due to the greaterdifferentiation of the scores for H in final-accented rising stimuli as compared with those

198 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for the corresponding stimuli with nonfinal accents This effect visible in panels (a) and(c) versus (b) and (d) in Figure 4 is most probably to be explained on the basis of the greatersalience of H in rising contours that serve to accent final syllables

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In a series of experiments we investigated the behavior of Dutch rising nuclear contours asa function of changes in pitch range by asking listeners to rate such contours on perceivedattributes believed to be expressed through variations in pitch range Our interest in the firsttwo experiments was in the behavior of L which had been claimed to be lowered withincreasing pitch range The first attribute we investigated prominence (Experiment 1)showed that perceived prominence is not an appropriate response variable since listenersperceive prominence in terms of salient pitch characteristics in the accented syllablerather than of the entire contour as realized over a polysyllabic stretch of speech In effectthey ignored the beginning of the rising movement in contours with final accent and theend in contours with nonfinal accent Experiment 2 which was undertaken to see if oneor more of the attributes ldquosurpriserdquo ldquoinsistencerdquo and ldquoindignationrdquo was perceived as afunction of the entire contour showed that perceived surprise correlated with the pitchrange if pitch range is assumed to be increased by raising H-tones but lowering L Onthe basis of the results of Experiment 3 in which the L H-H contour was compared withthe H H-H contour we found that perceived surprise is higher as the end of the rising

(a)

Figure 3

Perceived surprise as a function of H andH (panel (a)) and L and H (panel (b))

(b)

199C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

contour is higher but that the effect of the beginning of the rising contour in the accentedsyllable depends on whether relative to the preceding pitch it begins low in which casegreater surprise is signaled by lower pitch or high in which case the opposite is true

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these findings First it may not be usefulto consider perceived prominence to be an interesting attribute of a nuclear contour like LH-H or of the nuclear accent L It is of course common to think about pitch accents asdiscrete elements which are either present or absent and to believe that when presentthey have some level of prominence or strength This ldquoaccent strengthrdquo is we like to thinka function of the pitch level and pitch span specifications of the contour (Gussenhoven etal 1997) but it would now appear that information about these specifications cannot alwaysbe obtained by asking listeners to rate syllables (accents words or phrases) for perceivedprominence since these judgments are strongly influenced by the contextually determinedshape of the pitch contour in the accented syllable such that final and nonfinal accentedsyllables may receive very different reactions even if the pitch targets are identical

Figure 4

Perceived surprise as a function of H and H (top panels) and of L and H (bottom panels)for stimuli with final accents (panels (a) and (c)) and nonfinal accents (panels (b) and (d))separately

200 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Second one way in which speakers can convey surprise in Dutch is by increasing thepitch range as conceived by Liberman -Pierrehumbert lowering L and raising H-tones(A caveat is in order for speaker gender our results are based on the evaluation of malespeech) There are reports however that suggest that L- tones go up when the pitch rangeis increased Erickson Honda Hirai Beckman and Niimi (1994) show that increased levelsof vocal effort (soft voice normal voice loud voice) correlate with F0 of L in English theloud voice has the highest L- tones These findings are not contradictory however if thedistinction between pitch level and pitch span (Ladd 1996 p 260) is observed Restrictingourselves to within -speaker variation the strategy of overall raising of the pitch level whichwould only appear to be possible for the whole contour should perhaps be associated withhigher levels of arousal As was observed in the Discussion for Experiment 2 indignationis possibly expressed in this way as can be concluded on the basis of our finding thathigher targets for L lead to higher perceived indignation in two of the three types of stimuliAlso ldquospeaking uprdquo may employ this type of variation as suggested by the results ofErickson et al (1994) where the overall pitch raising may be seen as due to the effort toproduce a signal that carries over a greater distance By contrast expansion of the pitchspan is more appropriate for increases in what we might call intonational ldquoexplicitnessrdquoto be used when expressing emphasis or surprise and possibly in utterances that serve ascorrections of earlier utterances that were misunderstood or to listeners who are (believedto be) hard of hearing

The third conclusion is most immediately related to the purpose of our experimentsThe results of Experiment 3 provide strong support for the phonological analysis of risesby Pierrehumbert (1980) who described the equivalent American English contours as LH -H (low rise) and H H- H (high rise) respectively In combination with theassumption made in Liberman and Pierrehumbert (1984) that L is lowered but H-tonesraised when the pitch range is increased that analysis accurately explains the resultsobtained That is L H H and H H-H are categorically distinct contours of DutchThe alternative interpretation by which the contours corresponding to these transcriptionsform a single phonological class and represent different realizations varying merely ingradient pitch range must be excluded If our stimuli represented different realizations ofthe same phonological contour we would have expected the phonetic variation from highto low pitch in the accented syllable to have a uniform effect on the perception of the gradientattribute ldquosurpriserdquo

We must be careful to restrict our hypothesis that increased pitch span is achieved bylowering F0 to starred L- tones in Dutch Other L- tones may not behave in the same wayIndeed Fant and Kruckenberg (1994) found for Swedish that greater emphasis causes thelow F0 of Accent 2 to be lower but the low F0 for Accent 1 as well as all other targets tobe higher suggesting that not all L- tones are treated alike As observed by Ladd(forthcoming) the standard analysis (eg Bruce 1990) which analyzes Accent 1 as HLand Accent 2 as HL does not predict this result since one would sooner expect the L ofAccent 1 than the unstarred L- tone of Accent 2 to define the lower boundary of the pitchspan and thus be lowered with increased emphasis

Because the terms ldquohigh riserdquo and ldquolow riserdquo have been used in slightly differentmeanings we should be careful to prevent our results from being generalized to other distinc-tions In descriptions of British English ldquohigh risesrdquo are usually distinguished from ldquolow

201C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

risesrdquo on the basis of the end point For instance Halliday (1970) and OrsquoConnor and Arnold(1973) identify a rise from midlow to high (the ldquohigh riserdquo) as well as one from low tomidlow (the ldquolow riserdquo) Tench (1996) distinguishes low neutral and high rises on thebasis of the end point Crystal (1969) distinguishes three beginning points (high mediumlow) and three excursion sizes (wide normal narrow) to give nine categorically differentrises We believe that the rises described by these authors are versions of the L H-(H)contour with different pitch ranges Indeed the spoken illustrations accompanyingHalliday (1970) sound like such contours although the high rise is described as having amidlow beginning Cruttenden (1997 pp 51ndash 52) recognizes a (British) ldquolow riserdquo (ielow- range L L- H) as a category distinct from H H-H but suggests that wide-range L H-H and H H-H should be seen as a single category He also suggests thatH H-H is frequent in General American but has a low frequency of occurrence in BritishEnglish where the (British) ldquolow riserdquo tends to be used instead (see also 1997 pp 88 99)Cruttenden (1995) points out that utterance -final rises are on the increase in SouthernBritish speech among which there may well be ldquohigh risesrdquo (see also House 1998)

The description of Dutch intonation offered in rsquot Hart et al (1990) which makes nodistinction between the ldquohigh riserdquo and the ldquolow riserdquo could be modified so as to allow thecombination ldquo3rdquo (a late accent-lending rise) with ldquo2rdquo (equivalent to H) instead of justwith ldquoCrdquo (a nonaccent-lending fall) The combination ldquo32rdquo would then correspond to theldquolow riserdquo while ldquo12rdquo would represent only the ldquohigh riserdquo The description of Gussenhoven(1988 1991) which produces on a contour inventory based on phonological variations onthree basic pitch accents without ever producing a contour like the ldquohigh riserdquo should beaugmented with the contour H H which transcription adequately describes the two targetsof the ldquohigh riserdquo (see also Footnote 1)

Finally a more general conclusion In Experiment 3 we have seen how an investi-gation of the perceptual effects of pitch range led to a confirmation of a particular tonalanalysis of rising intonations This illustrates the importance of basing our data on as widea range of observations as possible The consideration of pitch range variation appears notonly to be relevant for studying models of phonetic implementation (cf Liberman ampPierrehumbert 1984) but also for models of phonological structure Indeed GrabeGussenhoven Haan Marsi and Post (1997) illustrates how studying the perception ofspeaker attitudes can lead to meaningful conclusions about intonational structure Theincreased interest for intonational meaning that seems to be detectable in experimentalresearch may therefore well lead to an improved understanding of morphology andphonology of intonation

Received January 18 1999 revised manuscript received September 22 1999 accepted December 6 1999

202 H and L in Dutch rising contours

REFERENCES

BARD E G ROBERTSON D amp SORACE A (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic accept-ability Language 72 32ndash68

BECKMAN M amp PIERREHUMBERT J B (1986) Intonational structure in English and JapanesePhonological Yearbook 3 255ndash310

BOERSMA P amp WEENINK D lthttpfonsg3letuvanlpraatgtBRUCE G (1990) Alignment and composition of tonal accents Comments on Silverman and

Pierrehumbertrsquos paper In J Kingston amp M Beckman (Eds) Papers in laboratory phonologyBetween the grammar and physics of speech (pp107ndash 114) Cambridge UK CambridgeUniversity Press

COLLIER R amp rsquot HART J (1980) Cursus Nederlandse IntonateLouvain AccoCOLLINS B amp MEES I (1981) The sounds of English The Hague Leiden University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1997) Intonation (2nd ed) Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1995) Rises in English In J Windsor Lewis (Ed) Studies in general and English

phonetics (pp155ndash173) London RoutledgeCRYSTAL D (1969) Prosodic systems and intonation in English Cambridge UK Cambridge

University PressERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H BECKMAN M E amp NIIMI S (1994) Global pitch range

and the production of low tones in English intonation International Conference on the Processingof Spoken Language 3 651ndash654

ERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H amp BECKMAN M E (1996) The production of low tonesin English intonation Journal of Phonetics 23 179ndash188

FANT G amp KRUCKENBERG A (1994) Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish SpeedTransmission Laboratorymdash Quarterly Status and Progress Report 2ndash 3 (pp125ndash 144) Alsopublished in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody 1994 Yokohama Japan

GRABE E GUSSENHOVEN C HAAN J MARSI E amp POST B (1997) Preaccentual pitch andspeaker attitude in Dutch Language and Speech 41 63ndash85

GUSSENHOVEN C (1988) Adequacy in intonation analysis The case of Dutch In H van der Hulstamp N Smith (Eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology (pp95ndash121) DordrechtForis

GUSSENHOVEN C (1991) Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch In T F Shannon amp J P Snapper(Eds) The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp139ndash 155) Lanham MDUniversity Press of America

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1988) Fundamental frequency declination in DutchTesting three hypotheses Journal of Phonetics 16 355ndash369

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1991) An experimental evaluation of two nuclear tonetaxonomies Linguistics 29 423ndash449

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1992) A target-interpolation model for the intonation of DutchICSLP2 (pp1235ndash1238)

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1997) Empirical evidence for the contrast between L andH in Dutch rising contours In A Botinis G Kouroupetroglou amp G Caryannis (Eds) Inton-ation Theory models and application Proceedings of ESCA workshop (pp169ndash172) AthensESCA and University of Athens

GUSSENHOVEN C REPP B H RIETVELD T RUMP H H amp TERKEN J (1997) The perceptualprominence of fundamental frequency peaks Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1023009ndash3022

HALLIDAY M A K (1970) IntonationLondon Oxford University Pressrsquot HART J COLLIER R amp COHEN A (1990) A perceptual study of intonation An experimental

phonetic approach Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressHOUSE J (1998) Review of Tench (1996) English Language and Linguistics 2 137ndash139

193C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

were not significant In the case of the response variable INSISTENCE there was a significanteffect for H in set 1 the set with final accent (H set 1 F(262)=764 plt01) In the datafor INDIGNATION the factor L was significant in set 2 the set with nonfinal accent withvariable H (L set 2 F(262)= 574 plt01) There were no significant interactions Table3 lists mean scores per F0 variable separately for each stimulus set for the three responsevariables Significant factors are listed in the last column

Conclusion

The results of Experiment 2 suggest that the attributes INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION are notperceived in accordance with the hypothesis that these dependent variables correlate withvariations in pitch range whereby pitch range can be increased by lowering L and raisingH- and H In fact the scores for the significant factor L in set 1 for INDIGNATION showa pattern which is the inverse of what we had expected to find in these data increasedperceived Indignation corresponding to higher values for L This result would appear toconfirm the conclusion of Mozziconacci (1998 p 121) that INDIGNATION is a perceptualattribute of ldquo12rdquo (in IPO-notation) that is H H-H contours with high pitch level andlarge pitch ranges The positive correlation between the F0 of L and perceived indignationmay point to a different type of manipulation of the pitch range in indignant speech thanin surprised speech Indignant speech may be cued by raising what Ladd (1996) calls theoverall pitch level instead of the pitch span

In contrast to the results for INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION the attribute SURPRISE

produced scores which were consistently in agreement with our hypothesis It is possiblethat the poor results for INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION were in part due the fact that these

TABLE 3

Mean SURPRISE INSISTENCE and INDIGNATION scores for each F0 step listed in order of increas-ing F0 in three stimulus sets

L H- H

Target in Hz Accent location 80 90 100 120 130 140 140 150 160 plt05

SurpriseSet 1 Final 537 468 426 ndash 426 484 521 L HSet 2 Nonfinal 559 525 445 ndash 447 518 563 L HSet 3 Nonfinal 625 590 570 563 574 648 ndash L

InsistenceSet 1 Final 545 538 537 ndash 528 510 582 ndashSet 2 Nonfinal 615 617 655 ndash 620 626 641 HSet 3 Nonfinal 616 625 627 622 623 623 ndash ndash

IndignationSet 1 Final 465 482 506 ndash 482 498 473 ndashSet 2 Nonfinal 432 468 512 ndash 500 458 455 LSet 3 Nonfinal 417 421 403 413 417 411 ndash ndash

194 H and L in Dutch rising contours

scales occupied the second and third positions respectively on the response sheets Theattention of the judges may well have slackened off after they had filled in the SURPRISE

scale which headed the list of three scales for each stimulus With hindsight it might havebeen better to present the stimuli separately for each response variable This would alsohave made it possible to include anchor stimuli as in Experiment 1 the omission of whichmay have contributed to the more erratic nature of the scores in Experiment 2

The aim of Experiment 2 was to find a response variable that depended on the pitchspan of the contour as conceived in the way outlined above and on the basis of these resultstherefore Experiment 3 can take as its starting point an appropriately refined hypothesiswith ldquoperceived surpriserdquo as the response variable Although it was not our purpose toestablish the full spectrum of attitudinal or emotional effects of different pitch range manip-ulations future research might well further explore the effects of pitch level and pitch spanin signaling of speaker attitudes and emotions

EXPERIMENT 3 PITTING L AGAINST H

Method

The purpose of Experiment 3 was to replicate the results obtained in Experiment 2 forSURPRISE and moreover to show that high rise contours analyzed as H H-H behave inthe same way as low rise contours for this dependent variable with the crucial exceptionthat lower beginnings of the high rise cause the utterance to express less surprise insteadof more as found for L in Experiment 2 To this end a different male speaker of Dutchrecorded the four sentences of Experiment 2 each spoken with an unemphatic weakly risingpitch accent on digital tape The durations were

1 Een nieuwe motor is te DUUR 1234ms

2 Je was al EERder bij hem geweest 1432ms

3 Is honderd gulden niet VEEL 1224ms

4 Zijn er niet MEER mensen op afgekomen 1608ms

Since the speech rate of these new utterances was some 20 faster than that of theutterances used for Experiment 1 the speech rate was left unchanged The F0 was artif i-cially manipulated with the help of the P-SOLA program made available in PRAAT Wedecided not to vary the F0 of H- in this test because the H H-H contours do not havea separate pitch target corresponding to H- and inclusion of this variable in the low risecontours would thus have introduced an imbalance in our experiment We used substan-tially higher values for H- and for the three steps for H as the old values produced asomewhat dull effect in these new utterances which we feared would have led to a crowdingof scores at the low end of the scale Table 4 gives the F0 values we used while diagram-matic representations of the stimuli are given in Figure 2

Since the variation in the F0 of the starred tone (3 steps) was crossed with the variationin the F0 of H (3 steps) there were nine stimuli for each source utterance The F0 of thepost-accentual mid-high level in the L H-H stimuli with nonfinal accent was heldconstant at 145 Hz Again in the corresponding stimuli with final accent there was nosuch mid level section F0 rising smoothly from the target of L to that of H The target

195C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

TABLE 4

F0 steps in Hz for L and H in final and nonfinal accented low rising contours and of H(H-)and H in final and nonfinal accented high rising contours used in Experiment 3

Accent location L H- H Nr of stimuli

Final 80 90 100 ndash 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 80 90 100 145 185 200 215 9

HH- H

Final 130 145 160 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 130 145 160 185 200 215 9

Figure 2

Diagrammatic representations of the stimuli used in Experiment 2 Nonfinal-accented L H-H is given in panel a final-accented L H-H in panel b nonfinal-accented H H-H inpanel c and final-accented H H-H in panel d

196 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for T began at one-tenth of the duration of the vowel after the CV boundary followingan 80ms rise in the case of H and a 20 ms fall in the case of L each starting at 100Hzthe end point of the prehead Except in the case of the final word duur the target of Lwas 80 ms long The target for H- after L and that of HH- (which have a single F0) ceased100ms before the target of H The end point of the final rise was located at the pointwhere the F0 reached a peak in the original contour which resulted in final voiced levelstretches varying from 0 (duur) to 70 ms (afgekomen) The target for L on duur lasted100 ms which left 80 ms for the final rise As before these values were arrived at on thebasis of the naturally spoken utterances and informal judgments of the naturalness of theartif icial contours

The total number of stimuli was 72 (2 contours acute 9 versions acute 4 sentences) We added24 fillers equally divided over the four source utterances with a variety of realization ofa L H L-H (ie a rising -falling -rising) contour This was done in order to increasethe intonational variety in the test These 96 items were randomized twice and each orderwas recorded onto digital tape preceded by ten practice stimuli of which the first eightwere identif ied as such in the instruction sheet and followed by two closing stimuli TheInter-Stimulus Interval was 45s The 108 stimuli (4 sentences acute 2 contours acute 9 versions=72 + 10 practice stimuli + 2 closing stimuli + 24 fillers) were presented in seven blocks of15 and one block of 3 Each block corresponded to a page on the answer sheet and waspreceded by a brief excerpt from a piano recital to give listeners an opportunity to relaxand turn the page The musical excerpt was followed by a 6 s pause and an anchor stimuluswhich was a pronunciation of the phrase Maal honderdTIEN ( lsquotimes a hundred -and -tenrsquo) produced by the same speaker who produced the source utterances realized with aL H L-H contour with a peak of 144 Hz and a low baseline of 110 Hz The degree ofsurprise realized in this anchor stimulus was said to lie exactly halfway on the scale InExperiment 1 we had an anchor stimulus before every stimulus This seemed to usunnecessary by the time we were designing Experiment 3 Pilot research without any anchorstimuli by Hedi Klein Tank had shown that for each page in the answer booklet the variancein the scores was positively correlated with serial position on the page It would appeartherefore that without anchors judges lose some of their orientation on the scale at theturn of each page Anchoring the scale at exactly those points in the test would thus seemto be the appropriate procedure

Two groups of subjects aged between 19 and 30 were recruited from the studentpopulation of Nijmegen one consisting of 15 and the other of 14 subjects The two tapeseach with a different random order of the stimuli were played at a comfortable volume vialoudspeakers to the two groups of subjects Judges were asked to rate the degree of surpriseexpressed by the intonation of each stimulus by placing a mark on a 100mm scale as inExperiment I They were paid a small fee

Results

Scores were obtained as for Experiment 1 An Analysis of Variance (repeated measures)was carried out to assess the influence of the independent variables on the scores Fourwithin -subject factors were included in the design ACCENT- LOCATION (early late)CONTOUR (L H-H vs H H-H) HEIGHT-OF-T (3 levels) and HEIGHT-OF-H (3 levels) In order to have an appropriate ratio between the number of independent

197C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

variables and the number of subjects scores were pooled over the four sentences nestedunder ACCENT- LOCATION Adopting a significance level of 05 we found the followingsignificant main effects CONTOUR F (128)= 1281 p= 001 HEIGHT-OF -TF(256)=5997 plt 001 and HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)=2603 plt 001 Two-way inter-actions were obtained for ACCENT- LOCATION CONTOUR F(256)= 6317 plt 001ACCENT- LOCATION acute HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)= 1187 plt001 and CONTOURacute HEIGHT-OF-T F (256)= 504 p=01 Where appropriate all significance levels wereHuynh-Feldt corrected

The important result here is the interaction between CONTOUR and HEIGHT-OF-T It indicates that raising the beginning of the rise does not have the same effect in thelow rise as it has in the high rise In order to assess the extent to which the scores variedas a function of the beginning of the rise in the L H-H and H H-H contours a trendanalysis (SPSS-MANOVA) was carried out on the data with a polynomial fitted consistingof a linear and a quadratic component An overall linear component as a function ofHEIGHT-OF-T was found to be significant F(128)= 7503 plt001 which interactedsignificantly with the factor CONTOUR F(128)= 810 p=008 The quadratic componentwas not significant

Figure 3 in which the scores for L and H are plotted for different levels of Hshows the crucial interaction graphically Data are pooled over four sentences In the toppanel we see that the lowest value (130 Hz) for H resulted in the lowest level of perceivedsurprise while the highest value (160Hz) expresses the highest degree In the bottom panelthe inverse relation is apparent for L Also the constant effect of H can be clearly seenin both contour types the degree of perceived surprise increases with increasing values ofH with only the stimuli combining L = 80 Hz and H= 185 Hz falling somewhat abovethe expected location

Discussion

The results of Experiment 3 replicate those obtained for perceived surprise in Experiment 2The conclusion must be that ldquohigh risesrdquo and ldquolow risesrdquo form separate phonological cate-gories in Dutch and moreover that ldquolow risesrdquo begin with L and ldquohigh risesrdquo begin withH We will return to this finding in the General Discussion

The effect of ACCENT- LOCATION and its significant interactions with CONTOURand HEIGHT-OF-H are of less interest The first interaction is due to the fact thatscores for the high rise are considerably higher for final accents than for nonfinal accentswhile those for the low rise are less affected by accent location and show a less extremebut opposite pattern Figure 4 presents the scores separately for final and nonfinal accents(pooled over two sentences) showing this interaction in nonfinal position high risingcontours convey less surprise than low- rising contours (panels (b) and (d)) while in finalposition this is not the case (cf panels (a) and (c)) Since the most striking data here arethe low scores for the high rise in nonfinal position this result can be explained by the factthat in these contours two relatively small F0- rises are divided over two syllables Bycontrast in the three other conditions the rises are either piled on top of each other (finalaccent) or the first of them is considerably larger (low rise on nonfinal accent) Lastly theinteraction between ACCENT- LOCATION and HEIGHT-OF-H is due to the greaterdifferentiation of the scores for H in final-accented rising stimuli as compared with those

198 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for the corresponding stimuli with nonfinal accents This effect visible in panels (a) and(c) versus (b) and (d) in Figure 4 is most probably to be explained on the basis of the greatersalience of H in rising contours that serve to accent final syllables

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In a series of experiments we investigated the behavior of Dutch rising nuclear contours asa function of changes in pitch range by asking listeners to rate such contours on perceivedattributes believed to be expressed through variations in pitch range Our interest in the firsttwo experiments was in the behavior of L which had been claimed to be lowered withincreasing pitch range The first attribute we investigated prominence (Experiment 1)showed that perceived prominence is not an appropriate response variable since listenersperceive prominence in terms of salient pitch characteristics in the accented syllablerather than of the entire contour as realized over a polysyllabic stretch of speech In effectthey ignored the beginning of the rising movement in contours with final accent and theend in contours with nonfinal accent Experiment 2 which was undertaken to see if oneor more of the attributes ldquosurpriserdquo ldquoinsistencerdquo and ldquoindignationrdquo was perceived as afunction of the entire contour showed that perceived surprise correlated with the pitchrange if pitch range is assumed to be increased by raising H-tones but lowering L Onthe basis of the results of Experiment 3 in which the L H-H contour was compared withthe H H-H contour we found that perceived surprise is higher as the end of the rising

(a)

Figure 3

Perceived surprise as a function of H andH (panel (a)) and L and H (panel (b))

(b)

199C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

contour is higher but that the effect of the beginning of the rising contour in the accentedsyllable depends on whether relative to the preceding pitch it begins low in which casegreater surprise is signaled by lower pitch or high in which case the opposite is true

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these findings First it may not be usefulto consider perceived prominence to be an interesting attribute of a nuclear contour like LH-H or of the nuclear accent L It is of course common to think about pitch accents asdiscrete elements which are either present or absent and to believe that when presentthey have some level of prominence or strength This ldquoaccent strengthrdquo is we like to thinka function of the pitch level and pitch span specifications of the contour (Gussenhoven etal 1997) but it would now appear that information about these specifications cannot alwaysbe obtained by asking listeners to rate syllables (accents words or phrases) for perceivedprominence since these judgments are strongly influenced by the contextually determinedshape of the pitch contour in the accented syllable such that final and nonfinal accentedsyllables may receive very different reactions even if the pitch targets are identical

Figure 4

Perceived surprise as a function of H and H (top panels) and of L and H (bottom panels)for stimuli with final accents (panels (a) and (c)) and nonfinal accents (panels (b) and (d))separately

200 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Second one way in which speakers can convey surprise in Dutch is by increasing thepitch range as conceived by Liberman -Pierrehumbert lowering L and raising H-tones(A caveat is in order for speaker gender our results are based on the evaluation of malespeech) There are reports however that suggest that L- tones go up when the pitch rangeis increased Erickson Honda Hirai Beckman and Niimi (1994) show that increased levelsof vocal effort (soft voice normal voice loud voice) correlate with F0 of L in English theloud voice has the highest L- tones These findings are not contradictory however if thedistinction between pitch level and pitch span (Ladd 1996 p 260) is observed Restrictingourselves to within -speaker variation the strategy of overall raising of the pitch level whichwould only appear to be possible for the whole contour should perhaps be associated withhigher levels of arousal As was observed in the Discussion for Experiment 2 indignationis possibly expressed in this way as can be concluded on the basis of our finding thathigher targets for L lead to higher perceived indignation in two of the three types of stimuliAlso ldquospeaking uprdquo may employ this type of variation as suggested by the results ofErickson et al (1994) where the overall pitch raising may be seen as due to the effort toproduce a signal that carries over a greater distance By contrast expansion of the pitchspan is more appropriate for increases in what we might call intonational ldquoexplicitnessrdquoto be used when expressing emphasis or surprise and possibly in utterances that serve ascorrections of earlier utterances that were misunderstood or to listeners who are (believedto be) hard of hearing

The third conclusion is most immediately related to the purpose of our experimentsThe results of Experiment 3 provide strong support for the phonological analysis of risesby Pierrehumbert (1980) who described the equivalent American English contours as LH -H (low rise) and H H- H (high rise) respectively In combination with theassumption made in Liberman and Pierrehumbert (1984) that L is lowered but H-tonesraised when the pitch range is increased that analysis accurately explains the resultsobtained That is L H H and H H-H are categorically distinct contours of DutchThe alternative interpretation by which the contours corresponding to these transcriptionsform a single phonological class and represent different realizations varying merely ingradient pitch range must be excluded If our stimuli represented different realizations ofthe same phonological contour we would have expected the phonetic variation from highto low pitch in the accented syllable to have a uniform effect on the perception of the gradientattribute ldquosurpriserdquo

We must be careful to restrict our hypothesis that increased pitch span is achieved bylowering F0 to starred L- tones in Dutch Other L- tones may not behave in the same wayIndeed Fant and Kruckenberg (1994) found for Swedish that greater emphasis causes thelow F0 of Accent 2 to be lower but the low F0 for Accent 1 as well as all other targets tobe higher suggesting that not all L- tones are treated alike As observed by Ladd(forthcoming) the standard analysis (eg Bruce 1990) which analyzes Accent 1 as HLand Accent 2 as HL does not predict this result since one would sooner expect the L ofAccent 1 than the unstarred L- tone of Accent 2 to define the lower boundary of the pitchspan and thus be lowered with increased emphasis

Because the terms ldquohigh riserdquo and ldquolow riserdquo have been used in slightly differentmeanings we should be careful to prevent our results from being generalized to other distinc-tions In descriptions of British English ldquohigh risesrdquo are usually distinguished from ldquolow

201C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

risesrdquo on the basis of the end point For instance Halliday (1970) and OrsquoConnor and Arnold(1973) identify a rise from midlow to high (the ldquohigh riserdquo) as well as one from low tomidlow (the ldquolow riserdquo) Tench (1996) distinguishes low neutral and high rises on thebasis of the end point Crystal (1969) distinguishes three beginning points (high mediumlow) and three excursion sizes (wide normal narrow) to give nine categorically differentrises We believe that the rises described by these authors are versions of the L H-(H)contour with different pitch ranges Indeed the spoken illustrations accompanyingHalliday (1970) sound like such contours although the high rise is described as having amidlow beginning Cruttenden (1997 pp 51ndash 52) recognizes a (British) ldquolow riserdquo (ielow- range L L- H) as a category distinct from H H-H but suggests that wide-range L H-H and H H-H should be seen as a single category He also suggests thatH H-H is frequent in General American but has a low frequency of occurrence in BritishEnglish where the (British) ldquolow riserdquo tends to be used instead (see also 1997 pp 88 99)Cruttenden (1995) points out that utterance -final rises are on the increase in SouthernBritish speech among which there may well be ldquohigh risesrdquo (see also House 1998)

The description of Dutch intonation offered in rsquot Hart et al (1990) which makes nodistinction between the ldquohigh riserdquo and the ldquolow riserdquo could be modified so as to allow thecombination ldquo3rdquo (a late accent-lending rise) with ldquo2rdquo (equivalent to H) instead of justwith ldquoCrdquo (a nonaccent-lending fall) The combination ldquo32rdquo would then correspond to theldquolow riserdquo while ldquo12rdquo would represent only the ldquohigh riserdquo The description of Gussenhoven(1988 1991) which produces on a contour inventory based on phonological variations onthree basic pitch accents without ever producing a contour like the ldquohigh riserdquo should beaugmented with the contour H H which transcription adequately describes the two targetsof the ldquohigh riserdquo (see also Footnote 1)

Finally a more general conclusion In Experiment 3 we have seen how an investi-gation of the perceptual effects of pitch range led to a confirmation of a particular tonalanalysis of rising intonations This illustrates the importance of basing our data on as widea range of observations as possible The consideration of pitch range variation appears notonly to be relevant for studying models of phonetic implementation (cf Liberman ampPierrehumbert 1984) but also for models of phonological structure Indeed GrabeGussenhoven Haan Marsi and Post (1997) illustrates how studying the perception ofspeaker attitudes can lead to meaningful conclusions about intonational structure Theincreased interest for intonational meaning that seems to be detectable in experimentalresearch may therefore well lead to an improved understanding of morphology andphonology of intonation

Received January 18 1999 revised manuscript received September 22 1999 accepted December 6 1999

202 H and L in Dutch rising contours

REFERENCES

BARD E G ROBERTSON D amp SORACE A (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic accept-ability Language 72 32ndash68

BECKMAN M amp PIERREHUMBERT J B (1986) Intonational structure in English and JapanesePhonological Yearbook 3 255ndash310

BOERSMA P amp WEENINK D lthttpfonsg3letuvanlpraatgtBRUCE G (1990) Alignment and composition of tonal accents Comments on Silverman and

Pierrehumbertrsquos paper In J Kingston amp M Beckman (Eds) Papers in laboratory phonologyBetween the grammar and physics of speech (pp107ndash 114) Cambridge UK CambridgeUniversity Press

COLLIER R amp rsquot HART J (1980) Cursus Nederlandse IntonateLouvain AccoCOLLINS B amp MEES I (1981) The sounds of English The Hague Leiden University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1997) Intonation (2nd ed) Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1995) Rises in English In J Windsor Lewis (Ed) Studies in general and English

phonetics (pp155ndash173) London RoutledgeCRYSTAL D (1969) Prosodic systems and intonation in English Cambridge UK Cambridge

University PressERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H BECKMAN M E amp NIIMI S (1994) Global pitch range

and the production of low tones in English intonation International Conference on the Processingof Spoken Language 3 651ndash654

ERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H amp BECKMAN M E (1996) The production of low tonesin English intonation Journal of Phonetics 23 179ndash188

FANT G amp KRUCKENBERG A (1994) Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish SpeedTransmission Laboratorymdash Quarterly Status and Progress Report 2ndash 3 (pp125ndash 144) Alsopublished in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody 1994 Yokohama Japan

GRABE E GUSSENHOVEN C HAAN J MARSI E amp POST B (1997) Preaccentual pitch andspeaker attitude in Dutch Language and Speech 41 63ndash85

GUSSENHOVEN C (1988) Adequacy in intonation analysis The case of Dutch In H van der Hulstamp N Smith (Eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology (pp95ndash121) DordrechtForis

GUSSENHOVEN C (1991) Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch In T F Shannon amp J P Snapper(Eds) The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp139ndash 155) Lanham MDUniversity Press of America

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1988) Fundamental frequency declination in DutchTesting three hypotheses Journal of Phonetics 16 355ndash369

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1991) An experimental evaluation of two nuclear tonetaxonomies Linguistics 29 423ndash449

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1992) A target-interpolation model for the intonation of DutchICSLP2 (pp1235ndash1238)

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1997) Empirical evidence for the contrast between L andH in Dutch rising contours In A Botinis G Kouroupetroglou amp G Caryannis (Eds) Inton-ation Theory models and application Proceedings of ESCA workshop (pp169ndash172) AthensESCA and University of Athens

GUSSENHOVEN C REPP B H RIETVELD T RUMP H H amp TERKEN J (1997) The perceptualprominence of fundamental frequency peaks Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1023009ndash3022

HALLIDAY M A K (1970) IntonationLondon Oxford University Pressrsquot HART J COLLIER R amp COHEN A (1990) A perceptual study of intonation An experimental

phonetic approach Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressHOUSE J (1998) Review of Tench (1996) English Language and Linguistics 2 137ndash139

194 H and L in Dutch rising contours

scales occupied the second and third positions respectively on the response sheets Theattention of the judges may well have slackened off after they had filled in the SURPRISE

scale which headed the list of three scales for each stimulus With hindsight it might havebeen better to present the stimuli separately for each response variable This would alsohave made it possible to include anchor stimuli as in Experiment 1 the omission of whichmay have contributed to the more erratic nature of the scores in Experiment 2

The aim of Experiment 2 was to find a response variable that depended on the pitchspan of the contour as conceived in the way outlined above and on the basis of these resultstherefore Experiment 3 can take as its starting point an appropriately refined hypothesiswith ldquoperceived surpriserdquo as the response variable Although it was not our purpose toestablish the full spectrum of attitudinal or emotional effects of different pitch range manip-ulations future research might well further explore the effects of pitch level and pitch spanin signaling of speaker attitudes and emotions

EXPERIMENT 3 PITTING L AGAINST H

Method

The purpose of Experiment 3 was to replicate the results obtained in Experiment 2 forSURPRISE and moreover to show that high rise contours analyzed as H H-H behave inthe same way as low rise contours for this dependent variable with the crucial exceptionthat lower beginnings of the high rise cause the utterance to express less surprise insteadof more as found for L in Experiment 2 To this end a different male speaker of Dutchrecorded the four sentences of Experiment 2 each spoken with an unemphatic weakly risingpitch accent on digital tape The durations were

1 Een nieuwe motor is te DUUR 1234ms

2 Je was al EERder bij hem geweest 1432ms

3 Is honderd gulden niet VEEL 1224ms

4 Zijn er niet MEER mensen op afgekomen 1608ms

Since the speech rate of these new utterances was some 20 faster than that of theutterances used for Experiment 1 the speech rate was left unchanged The F0 was artif i-cially manipulated with the help of the P-SOLA program made available in PRAAT Wedecided not to vary the F0 of H- in this test because the H H-H contours do not havea separate pitch target corresponding to H- and inclusion of this variable in the low risecontours would thus have introduced an imbalance in our experiment We used substan-tially higher values for H- and for the three steps for H as the old values produced asomewhat dull effect in these new utterances which we feared would have led to a crowdingof scores at the low end of the scale Table 4 gives the F0 values we used while diagram-matic representations of the stimuli are given in Figure 2

Since the variation in the F0 of the starred tone (3 steps) was crossed with the variationin the F0 of H (3 steps) there were nine stimuli for each source utterance The F0 of thepost-accentual mid-high level in the L H-H stimuli with nonfinal accent was heldconstant at 145 Hz Again in the corresponding stimuli with final accent there was nosuch mid level section F0 rising smoothly from the target of L to that of H The target

195C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

TABLE 4

F0 steps in Hz for L and H in final and nonfinal accented low rising contours and of H(H-)and H in final and nonfinal accented high rising contours used in Experiment 3

Accent location L H- H Nr of stimuli

Final 80 90 100 ndash 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 80 90 100 145 185 200 215 9

HH- H

Final 130 145 160 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 130 145 160 185 200 215 9

Figure 2

Diagrammatic representations of the stimuli used in Experiment 2 Nonfinal-accented L H-H is given in panel a final-accented L H-H in panel b nonfinal-accented H H-H inpanel c and final-accented H H-H in panel d

196 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for T began at one-tenth of the duration of the vowel after the CV boundary followingan 80ms rise in the case of H and a 20 ms fall in the case of L each starting at 100Hzthe end point of the prehead Except in the case of the final word duur the target of Lwas 80 ms long The target for H- after L and that of HH- (which have a single F0) ceased100ms before the target of H The end point of the final rise was located at the pointwhere the F0 reached a peak in the original contour which resulted in final voiced levelstretches varying from 0 (duur) to 70 ms (afgekomen) The target for L on duur lasted100 ms which left 80 ms for the final rise As before these values were arrived at on thebasis of the naturally spoken utterances and informal judgments of the naturalness of theartif icial contours

The total number of stimuli was 72 (2 contours acute 9 versions acute 4 sentences) We added24 fillers equally divided over the four source utterances with a variety of realization ofa L H L-H (ie a rising -falling -rising) contour This was done in order to increasethe intonational variety in the test These 96 items were randomized twice and each orderwas recorded onto digital tape preceded by ten practice stimuli of which the first eightwere identif ied as such in the instruction sheet and followed by two closing stimuli TheInter-Stimulus Interval was 45s The 108 stimuli (4 sentences acute 2 contours acute 9 versions=72 + 10 practice stimuli + 2 closing stimuli + 24 fillers) were presented in seven blocks of15 and one block of 3 Each block corresponded to a page on the answer sheet and waspreceded by a brief excerpt from a piano recital to give listeners an opportunity to relaxand turn the page The musical excerpt was followed by a 6 s pause and an anchor stimuluswhich was a pronunciation of the phrase Maal honderdTIEN ( lsquotimes a hundred -and -tenrsquo) produced by the same speaker who produced the source utterances realized with aL H L-H contour with a peak of 144 Hz and a low baseline of 110 Hz The degree ofsurprise realized in this anchor stimulus was said to lie exactly halfway on the scale InExperiment 1 we had an anchor stimulus before every stimulus This seemed to usunnecessary by the time we were designing Experiment 3 Pilot research without any anchorstimuli by Hedi Klein Tank had shown that for each page in the answer booklet the variancein the scores was positively correlated with serial position on the page It would appeartherefore that without anchors judges lose some of their orientation on the scale at theturn of each page Anchoring the scale at exactly those points in the test would thus seemto be the appropriate procedure

Two groups of subjects aged between 19 and 30 were recruited from the studentpopulation of Nijmegen one consisting of 15 and the other of 14 subjects The two tapeseach with a different random order of the stimuli were played at a comfortable volume vialoudspeakers to the two groups of subjects Judges were asked to rate the degree of surpriseexpressed by the intonation of each stimulus by placing a mark on a 100mm scale as inExperiment I They were paid a small fee

Results

Scores were obtained as for Experiment 1 An Analysis of Variance (repeated measures)was carried out to assess the influence of the independent variables on the scores Fourwithin -subject factors were included in the design ACCENT- LOCATION (early late)CONTOUR (L H-H vs H H-H) HEIGHT-OF-T (3 levels) and HEIGHT-OF-H (3 levels) In order to have an appropriate ratio between the number of independent

197C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

variables and the number of subjects scores were pooled over the four sentences nestedunder ACCENT- LOCATION Adopting a significance level of 05 we found the followingsignificant main effects CONTOUR F (128)= 1281 p= 001 HEIGHT-OF -TF(256)=5997 plt 001 and HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)=2603 plt 001 Two-way inter-actions were obtained for ACCENT- LOCATION CONTOUR F(256)= 6317 plt 001ACCENT- LOCATION acute HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)= 1187 plt001 and CONTOURacute HEIGHT-OF-T F (256)= 504 p=01 Where appropriate all significance levels wereHuynh-Feldt corrected

The important result here is the interaction between CONTOUR and HEIGHT-OF-T It indicates that raising the beginning of the rise does not have the same effect in thelow rise as it has in the high rise In order to assess the extent to which the scores variedas a function of the beginning of the rise in the L H-H and H H-H contours a trendanalysis (SPSS-MANOVA) was carried out on the data with a polynomial fitted consistingof a linear and a quadratic component An overall linear component as a function ofHEIGHT-OF-T was found to be significant F(128)= 7503 plt001 which interactedsignificantly with the factor CONTOUR F(128)= 810 p=008 The quadratic componentwas not significant

Figure 3 in which the scores for L and H are plotted for different levels of Hshows the crucial interaction graphically Data are pooled over four sentences In the toppanel we see that the lowest value (130 Hz) for H resulted in the lowest level of perceivedsurprise while the highest value (160Hz) expresses the highest degree In the bottom panelthe inverse relation is apparent for L Also the constant effect of H can be clearly seenin both contour types the degree of perceived surprise increases with increasing values ofH with only the stimuli combining L = 80 Hz and H= 185 Hz falling somewhat abovethe expected location

Discussion

The results of Experiment 3 replicate those obtained for perceived surprise in Experiment 2The conclusion must be that ldquohigh risesrdquo and ldquolow risesrdquo form separate phonological cate-gories in Dutch and moreover that ldquolow risesrdquo begin with L and ldquohigh risesrdquo begin withH We will return to this finding in the General Discussion

The effect of ACCENT- LOCATION and its significant interactions with CONTOURand HEIGHT-OF-H are of less interest The first interaction is due to the fact thatscores for the high rise are considerably higher for final accents than for nonfinal accentswhile those for the low rise are less affected by accent location and show a less extremebut opposite pattern Figure 4 presents the scores separately for final and nonfinal accents(pooled over two sentences) showing this interaction in nonfinal position high risingcontours convey less surprise than low- rising contours (panels (b) and (d)) while in finalposition this is not the case (cf panels (a) and (c)) Since the most striking data here arethe low scores for the high rise in nonfinal position this result can be explained by the factthat in these contours two relatively small F0- rises are divided over two syllables Bycontrast in the three other conditions the rises are either piled on top of each other (finalaccent) or the first of them is considerably larger (low rise on nonfinal accent) Lastly theinteraction between ACCENT- LOCATION and HEIGHT-OF-H is due to the greaterdifferentiation of the scores for H in final-accented rising stimuli as compared with those

198 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for the corresponding stimuli with nonfinal accents This effect visible in panels (a) and(c) versus (b) and (d) in Figure 4 is most probably to be explained on the basis of the greatersalience of H in rising contours that serve to accent final syllables

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In a series of experiments we investigated the behavior of Dutch rising nuclear contours asa function of changes in pitch range by asking listeners to rate such contours on perceivedattributes believed to be expressed through variations in pitch range Our interest in the firsttwo experiments was in the behavior of L which had been claimed to be lowered withincreasing pitch range The first attribute we investigated prominence (Experiment 1)showed that perceived prominence is not an appropriate response variable since listenersperceive prominence in terms of salient pitch characteristics in the accented syllablerather than of the entire contour as realized over a polysyllabic stretch of speech In effectthey ignored the beginning of the rising movement in contours with final accent and theend in contours with nonfinal accent Experiment 2 which was undertaken to see if oneor more of the attributes ldquosurpriserdquo ldquoinsistencerdquo and ldquoindignationrdquo was perceived as afunction of the entire contour showed that perceived surprise correlated with the pitchrange if pitch range is assumed to be increased by raising H-tones but lowering L Onthe basis of the results of Experiment 3 in which the L H-H contour was compared withthe H H-H contour we found that perceived surprise is higher as the end of the rising

(a)

Figure 3

Perceived surprise as a function of H andH (panel (a)) and L and H (panel (b))

(b)

199C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

contour is higher but that the effect of the beginning of the rising contour in the accentedsyllable depends on whether relative to the preceding pitch it begins low in which casegreater surprise is signaled by lower pitch or high in which case the opposite is true

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these findings First it may not be usefulto consider perceived prominence to be an interesting attribute of a nuclear contour like LH-H or of the nuclear accent L It is of course common to think about pitch accents asdiscrete elements which are either present or absent and to believe that when presentthey have some level of prominence or strength This ldquoaccent strengthrdquo is we like to thinka function of the pitch level and pitch span specifications of the contour (Gussenhoven etal 1997) but it would now appear that information about these specifications cannot alwaysbe obtained by asking listeners to rate syllables (accents words or phrases) for perceivedprominence since these judgments are strongly influenced by the contextually determinedshape of the pitch contour in the accented syllable such that final and nonfinal accentedsyllables may receive very different reactions even if the pitch targets are identical

Figure 4

Perceived surprise as a function of H and H (top panels) and of L and H (bottom panels)for stimuli with final accents (panels (a) and (c)) and nonfinal accents (panels (b) and (d))separately

200 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Second one way in which speakers can convey surprise in Dutch is by increasing thepitch range as conceived by Liberman -Pierrehumbert lowering L and raising H-tones(A caveat is in order for speaker gender our results are based on the evaluation of malespeech) There are reports however that suggest that L- tones go up when the pitch rangeis increased Erickson Honda Hirai Beckman and Niimi (1994) show that increased levelsof vocal effort (soft voice normal voice loud voice) correlate with F0 of L in English theloud voice has the highest L- tones These findings are not contradictory however if thedistinction between pitch level and pitch span (Ladd 1996 p 260) is observed Restrictingourselves to within -speaker variation the strategy of overall raising of the pitch level whichwould only appear to be possible for the whole contour should perhaps be associated withhigher levels of arousal As was observed in the Discussion for Experiment 2 indignationis possibly expressed in this way as can be concluded on the basis of our finding thathigher targets for L lead to higher perceived indignation in two of the three types of stimuliAlso ldquospeaking uprdquo may employ this type of variation as suggested by the results ofErickson et al (1994) where the overall pitch raising may be seen as due to the effort toproduce a signal that carries over a greater distance By contrast expansion of the pitchspan is more appropriate for increases in what we might call intonational ldquoexplicitnessrdquoto be used when expressing emphasis or surprise and possibly in utterances that serve ascorrections of earlier utterances that were misunderstood or to listeners who are (believedto be) hard of hearing

The third conclusion is most immediately related to the purpose of our experimentsThe results of Experiment 3 provide strong support for the phonological analysis of risesby Pierrehumbert (1980) who described the equivalent American English contours as LH -H (low rise) and H H- H (high rise) respectively In combination with theassumption made in Liberman and Pierrehumbert (1984) that L is lowered but H-tonesraised when the pitch range is increased that analysis accurately explains the resultsobtained That is L H H and H H-H are categorically distinct contours of DutchThe alternative interpretation by which the contours corresponding to these transcriptionsform a single phonological class and represent different realizations varying merely ingradient pitch range must be excluded If our stimuli represented different realizations ofthe same phonological contour we would have expected the phonetic variation from highto low pitch in the accented syllable to have a uniform effect on the perception of the gradientattribute ldquosurpriserdquo

We must be careful to restrict our hypothesis that increased pitch span is achieved bylowering F0 to starred L- tones in Dutch Other L- tones may not behave in the same wayIndeed Fant and Kruckenberg (1994) found for Swedish that greater emphasis causes thelow F0 of Accent 2 to be lower but the low F0 for Accent 1 as well as all other targets tobe higher suggesting that not all L- tones are treated alike As observed by Ladd(forthcoming) the standard analysis (eg Bruce 1990) which analyzes Accent 1 as HLand Accent 2 as HL does not predict this result since one would sooner expect the L ofAccent 1 than the unstarred L- tone of Accent 2 to define the lower boundary of the pitchspan and thus be lowered with increased emphasis

Because the terms ldquohigh riserdquo and ldquolow riserdquo have been used in slightly differentmeanings we should be careful to prevent our results from being generalized to other distinc-tions In descriptions of British English ldquohigh risesrdquo are usually distinguished from ldquolow

201C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

risesrdquo on the basis of the end point For instance Halliday (1970) and OrsquoConnor and Arnold(1973) identify a rise from midlow to high (the ldquohigh riserdquo) as well as one from low tomidlow (the ldquolow riserdquo) Tench (1996) distinguishes low neutral and high rises on thebasis of the end point Crystal (1969) distinguishes three beginning points (high mediumlow) and three excursion sizes (wide normal narrow) to give nine categorically differentrises We believe that the rises described by these authors are versions of the L H-(H)contour with different pitch ranges Indeed the spoken illustrations accompanyingHalliday (1970) sound like such contours although the high rise is described as having amidlow beginning Cruttenden (1997 pp 51ndash 52) recognizes a (British) ldquolow riserdquo (ielow- range L L- H) as a category distinct from H H-H but suggests that wide-range L H-H and H H-H should be seen as a single category He also suggests thatH H-H is frequent in General American but has a low frequency of occurrence in BritishEnglish where the (British) ldquolow riserdquo tends to be used instead (see also 1997 pp 88 99)Cruttenden (1995) points out that utterance -final rises are on the increase in SouthernBritish speech among which there may well be ldquohigh risesrdquo (see also House 1998)

The description of Dutch intonation offered in rsquot Hart et al (1990) which makes nodistinction between the ldquohigh riserdquo and the ldquolow riserdquo could be modified so as to allow thecombination ldquo3rdquo (a late accent-lending rise) with ldquo2rdquo (equivalent to H) instead of justwith ldquoCrdquo (a nonaccent-lending fall) The combination ldquo32rdquo would then correspond to theldquolow riserdquo while ldquo12rdquo would represent only the ldquohigh riserdquo The description of Gussenhoven(1988 1991) which produces on a contour inventory based on phonological variations onthree basic pitch accents without ever producing a contour like the ldquohigh riserdquo should beaugmented with the contour H H which transcription adequately describes the two targetsof the ldquohigh riserdquo (see also Footnote 1)

Finally a more general conclusion In Experiment 3 we have seen how an investi-gation of the perceptual effects of pitch range led to a confirmation of a particular tonalanalysis of rising intonations This illustrates the importance of basing our data on as widea range of observations as possible The consideration of pitch range variation appears notonly to be relevant for studying models of phonetic implementation (cf Liberman ampPierrehumbert 1984) but also for models of phonological structure Indeed GrabeGussenhoven Haan Marsi and Post (1997) illustrates how studying the perception ofspeaker attitudes can lead to meaningful conclusions about intonational structure Theincreased interest for intonational meaning that seems to be detectable in experimentalresearch may therefore well lead to an improved understanding of morphology andphonology of intonation

Received January 18 1999 revised manuscript received September 22 1999 accepted December 6 1999

202 H and L in Dutch rising contours

REFERENCES

BARD E G ROBERTSON D amp SORACE A (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic accept-ability Language 72 32ndash68

BECKMAN M amp PIERREHUMBERT J B (1986) Intonational structure in English and JapanesePhonological Yearbook 3 255ndash310

BOERSMA P amp WEENINK D lthttpfonsg3letuvanlpraatgtBRUCE G (1990) Alignment and composition of tonal accents Comments on Silverman and

Pierrehumbertrsquos paper In J Kingston amp M Beckman (Eds) Papers in laboratory phonologyBetween the grammar and physics of speech (pp107ndash 114) Cambridge UK CambridgeUniversity Press

COLLIER R amp rsquot HART J (1980) Cursus Nederlandse IntonateLouvain AccoCOLLINS B amp MEES I (1981) The sounds of English The Hague Leiden University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1997) Intonation (2nd ed) Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1995) Rises in English In J Windsor Lewis (Ed) Studies in general and English

phonetics (pp155ndash173) London RoutledgeCRYSTAL D (1969) Prosodic systems and intonation in English Cambridge UK Cambridge

University PressERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H BECKMAN M E amp NIIMI S (1994) Global pitch range

and the production of low tones in English intonation International Conference on the Processingof Spoken Language 3 651ndash654

ERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H amp BECKMAN M E (1996) The production of low tonesin English intonation Journal of Phonetics 23 179ndash188

FANT G amp KRUCKENBERG A (1994) Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish SpeedTransmission Laboratorymdash Quarterly Status and Progress Report 2ndash 3 (pp125ndash 144) Alsopublished in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody 1994 Yokohama Japan

GRABE E GUSSENHOVEN C HAAN J MARSI E amp POST B (1997) Preaccentual pitch andspeaker attitude in Dutch Language and Speech 41 63ndash85

GUSSENHOVEN C (1988) Adequacy in intonation analysis The case of Dutch In H van der Hulstamp N Smith (Eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology (pp95ndash121) DordrechtForis

GUSSENHOVEN C (1991) Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch In T F Shannon amp J P Snapper(Eds) The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp139ndash 155) Lanham MDUniversity Press of America

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1988) Fundamental frequency declination in DutchTesting three hypotheses Journal of Phonetics 16 355ndash369

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1991) An experimental evaluation of two nuclear tonetaxonomies Linguistics 29 423ndash449

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1992) A target-interpolation model for the intonation of DutchICSLP2 (pp1235ndash1238)

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1997) Empirical evidence for the contrast between L andH in Dutch rising contours In A Botinis G Kouroupetroglou amp G Caryannis (Eds) Inton-ation Theory models and application Proceedings of ESCA workshop (pp169ndash172) AthensESCA and University of Athens

GUSSENHOVEN C REPP B H RIETVELD T RUMP H H amp TERKEN J (1997) The perceptualprominence of fundamental frequency peaks Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1023009ndash3022

HALLIDAY M A K (1970) IntonationLondon Oxford University Pressrsquot HART J COLLIER R amp COHEN A (1990) A perceptual study of intonation An experimental

phonetic approach Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressHOUSE J (1998) Review of Tench (1996) English Language and Linguistics 2 137ndash139

195C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

TABLE 4

F0 steps in Hz for L and H in final and nonfinal accented low rising contours and of H(H-)and H in final and nonfinal accented high rising contours used in Experiment 3

Accent location L H- H Nr of stimuli

Final 80 90 100 ndash 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 80 90 100 145 185 200 215 9

HH- H

Final 130 145 160 185 200 215 9Nonfinal 130 145 160 185 200 215 9

Figure 2

Diagrammatic representations of the stimuli used in Experiment 2 Nonfinal-accented L H-H is given in panel a final-accented L H-H in panel b nonfinal-accented H H-H inpanel c and final-accented H H-H in panel d

196 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for T began at one-tenth of the duration of the vowel after the CV boundary followingan 80ms rise in the case of H and a 20 ms fall in the case of L each starting at 100Hzthe end point of the prehead Except in the case of the final word duur the target of Lwas 80 ms long The target for H- after L and that of HH- (which have a single F0) ceased100ms before the target of H The end point of the final rise was located at the pointwhere the F0 reached a peak in the original contour which resulted in final voiced levelstretches varying from 0 (duur) to 70 ms (afgekomen) The target for L on duur lasted100 ms which left 80 ms for the final rise As before these values were arrived at on thebasis of the naturally spoken utterances and informal judgments of the naturalness of theartif icial contours

The total number of stimuli was 72 (2 contours acute 9 versions acute 4 sentences) We added24 fillers equally divided over the four source utterances with a variety of realization ofa L H L-H (ie a rising -falling -rising) contour This was done in order to increasethe intonational variety in the test These 96 items were randomized twice and each orderwas recorded onto digital tape preceded by ten practice stimuli of which the first eightwere identif ied as such in the instruction sheet and followed by two closing stimuli TheInter-Stimulus Interval was 45s The 108 stimuli (4 sentences acute 2 contours acute 9 versions=72 + 10 practice stimuli + 2 closing stimuli + 24 fillers) were presented in seven blocks of15 and one block of 3 Each block corresponded to a page on the answer sheet and waspreceded by a brief excerpt from a piano recital to give listeners an opportunity to relaxand turn the page The musical excerpt was followed by a 6 s pause and an anchor stimuluswhich was a pronunciation of the phrase Maal honderdTIEN ( lsquotimes a hundred -and -tenrsquo) produced by the same speaker who produced the source utterances realized with aL H L-H contour with a peak of 144 Hz and a low baseline of 110 Hz The degree ofsurprise realized in this anchor stimulus was said to lie exactly halfway on the scale InExperiment 1 we had an anchor stimulus before every stimulus This seemed to usunnecessary by the time we were designing Experiment 3 Pilot research without any anchorstimuli by Hedi Klein Tank had shown that for each page in the answer booklet the variancein the scores was positively correlated with serial position on the page It would appeartherefore that without anchors judges lose some of their orientation on the scale at theturn of each page Anchoring the scale at exactly those points in the test would thus seemto be the appropriate procedure

Two groups of subjects aged between 19 and 30 were recruited from the studentpopulation of Nijmegen one consisting of 15 and the other of 14 subjects The two tapeseach with a different random order of the stimuli were played at a comfortable volume vialoudspeakers to the two groups of subjects Judges were asked to rate the degree of surpriseexpressed by the intonation of each stimulus by placing a mark on a 100mm scale as inExperiment I They were paid a small fee

Results

Scores were obtained as for Experiment 1 An Analysis of Variance (repeated measures)was carried out to assess the influence of the independent variables on the scores Fourwithin -subject factors were included in the design ACCENT- LOCATION (early late)CONTOUR (L H-H vs H H-H) HEIGHT-OF-T (3 levels) and HEIGHT-OF-H (3 levels) In order to have an appropriate ratio between the number of independent

197C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

variables and the number of subjects scores were pooled over the four sentences nestedunder ACCENT- LOCATION Adopting a significance level of 05 we found the followingsignificant main effects CONTOUR F (128)= 1281 p= 001 HEIGHT-OF -TF(256)=5997 plt 001 and HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)=2603 plt 001 Two-way inter-actions were obtained for ACCENT- LOCATION CONTOUR F(256)= 6317 plt 001ACCENT- LOCATION acute HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)= 1187 plt001 and CONTOURacute HEIGHT-OF-T F (256)= 504 p=01 Where appropriate all significance levels wereHuynh-Feldt corrected

The important result here is the interaction between CONTOUR and HEIGHT-OF-T It indicates that raising the beginning of the rise does not have the same effect in thelow rise as it has in the high rise In order to assess the extent to which the scores variedas a function of the beginning of the rise in the L H-H and H H-H contours a trendanalysis (SPSS-MANOVA) was carried out on the data with a polynomial fitted consistingof a linear and a quadratic component An overall linear component as a function ofHEIGHT-OF-T was found to be significant F(128)= 7503 plt001 which interactedsignificantly with the factor CONTOUR F(128)= 810 p=008 The quadratic componentwas not significant

Figure 3 in which the scores for L and H are plotted for different levels of Hshows the crucial interaction graphically Data are pooled over four sentences In the toppanel we see that the lowest value (130 Hz) for H resulted in the lowest level of perceivedsurprise while the highest value (160Hz) expresses the highest degree In the bottom panelthe inverse relation is apparent for L Also the constant effect of H can be clearly seenin both contour types the degree of perceived surprise increases with increasing values ofH with only the stimuli combining L = 80 Hz and H= 185 Hz falling somewhat abovethe expected location

Discussion

The results of Experiment 3 replicate those obtained for perceived surprise in Experiment 2The conclusion must be that ldquohigh risesrdquo and ldquolow risesrdquo form separate phonological cate-gories in Dutch and moreover that ldquolow risesrdquo begin with L and ldquohigh risesrdquo begin withH We will return to this finding in the General Discussion

The effect of ACCENT- LOCATION and its significant interactions with CONTOURand HEIGHT-OF-H are of less interest The first interaction is due to the fact thatscores for the high rise are considerably higher for final accents than for nonfinal accentswhile those for the low rise are less affected by accent location and show a less extremebut opposite pattern Figure 4 presents the scores separately for final and nonfinal accents(pooled over two sentences) showing this interaction in nonfinal position high risingcontours convey less surprise than low- rising contours (panels (b) and (d)) while in finalposition this is not the case (cf panels (a) and (c)) Since the most striking data here arethe low scores for the high rise in nonfinal position this result can be explained by the factthat in these contours two relatively small F0- rises are divided over two syllables Bycontrast in the three other conditions the rises are either piled on top of each other (finalaccent) or the first of them is considerably larger (low rise on nonfinal accent) Lastly theinteraction between ACCENT- LOCATION and HEIGHT-OF-H is due to the greaterdifferentiation of the scores for H in final-accented rising stimuli as compared with those

198 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for the corresponding stimuli with nonfinal accents This effect visible in panels (a) and(c) versus (b) and (d) in Figure 4 is most probably to be explained on the basis of the greatersalience of H in rising contours that serve to accent final syllables

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In a series of experiments we investigated the behavior of Dutch rising nuclear contours asa function of changes in pitch range by asking listeners to rate such contours on perceivedattributes believed to be expressed through variations in pitch range Our interest in the firsttwo experiments was in the behavior of L which had been claimed to be lowered withincreasing pitch range The first attribute we investigated prominence (Experiment 1)showed that perceived prominence is not an appropriate response variable since listenersperceive prominence in terms of salient pitch characteristics in the accented syllablerather than of the entire contour as realized over a polysyllabic stretch of speech In effectthey ignored the beginning of the rising movement in contours with final accent and theend in contours with nonfinal accent Experiment 2 which was undertaken to see if oneor more of the attributes ldquosurpriserdquo ldquoinsistencerdquo and ldquoindignationrdquo was perceived as afunction of the entire contour showed that perceived surprise correlated with the pitchrange if pitch range is assumed to be increased by raising H-tones but lowering L Onthe basis of the results of Experiment 3 in which the L H-H contour was compared withthe H H-H contour we found that perceived surprise is higher as the end of the rising

(a)

Figure 3

Perceived surprise as a function of H andH (panel (a)) and L and H (panel (b))

(b)

199C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

contour is higher but that the effect of the beginning of the rising contour in the accentedsyllable depends on whether relative to the preceding pitch it begins low in which casegreater surprise is signaled by lower pitch or high in which case the opposite is true

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these findings First it may not be usefulto consider perceived prominence to be an interesting attribute of a nuclear contour like LH-H or of the nuclear accent L It is of course common to think about pitch accents asdiscrete elements which are either present or absent and to believe that when presentthey have some level of prominence or strength This ldquoaccent strengthrdquo is we like to thinka function of the pitch level and pitch span specifications of the contour (Gussenhoven etal 1997) but it would now appear that information about these specifications cannot alwaysbe obtained by asking listeners to rate syllables (accents words or phrases) for perceivedprominence since these judgments are strongly influenced by the contextually determinedshape of the pitch contour in the accented syllable such that final and nonfinal accentedsyllables may receive very different reactions even if the pitch targets are identical

Figure 4

Perceived surprise as a function of H and H (top panels) and of L and H (bottom panels)for stimuli with final accents (panels (a) and (c)) and nonfinal accents (panels (b) and (d))separately

200 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Second one way in which speakers can convey surprise in Dutch is by increasing thepitch range as conceived by Liberman -Pierrehumbert lowering L and raising H-tones(A caveat is in order for speaker gender our results are based on the evaluation of malespeech) There are reports however that suggest that L- tones go up when the pitch rangeis increased Erickson Honda Hirai Beckman and Niimi (1994) show that increased levelsof vocal effort (soft voice normal voice loud voice) correlate with F0 of L in English theloud voice has the highest L- tones These findings are not contradictory however if thedistinction between pitch level and pitch span (Ladd 1996 p 260) is observed Restrictingourselves to within -speaker variation the strategy of overall raising of the pitch level whichwould only appear to be possible for the whole contour should perhaps be associated withhigher levels of arousal As was observed in the Discussion for Experiment 2 indignationis possibly expressed in this way as can be concluded on the basis of our finding thathigher targets for L lead to higher perceived indignation in two of the three types of stimuliAlso ldquospeaking uprdquo may employ this type of variation as suggested by the results ofErickson et al (1994) where the overall pitch raising may be seen as due to the effort toproduce a signal that carries over a greater distance By contrast expansion of the pitchspan is more appropriate for increases in what we might call intonational ldquoexplicitnessrdquoto be used when expressing emphasis or surprise and possibly in utterances that serve ascorrections of earlier utterances that were misunderstood or to listeners who are (believedto be) hard of hearing

The third conclusion is most immediately related to the purpose of our experimentsThe results of Experiment 3 provide strong support for the phonological analysis of risesby Pierrehumbert (1980) who described the equivalent American English contours as LH -H (low rise) and H H- H (high rise) respectively In combination with theassumption made in Liberman and Pierrehumbert (1984) that L is lowered but H-tonesraised when the pitch range is increased that analysis accurately explains the resultsobtained That is L H H and H H-H are categorically distinct contours of DutchThe alternative interpretation by which the contours corresponding to these transcriptionsform a single phonological class and represent different realizations varying merely ingradient pitch range must be excluded If our stimuli represented different realizations ofthe same phonological contour we would have expected the phonetic variation from highto low pitch in the accented syllable to have a uniform effect on the perception of the gradientattribute ldquosurpriserdquo

We must be careful to restrict our hypothesis that increased pitch span is achieved bylowering F0 to starred L- tones in Dutch Other L- tones may not behave in the same wayIndeed Fant and Kruckenberg (1994) found for Swedish that greater emphasis causes thelow F0 of Accent 2 to be lower but the low F0 for Accent 1 as well as all other targets tobe higher suggesting that not all L- tones are treated alike As observed by Ladd(forthcoming) the standard analysis (eg Bruce 1990) which analyzes Accent 1 as HLand Accent 2 as HL does not predict this result since one would sooner expect the L ofAccent 1 than the unstarred L- tone of Accent 2 to define the lower boundary of the pitchspan and thus be lowered with increased emphasis

Because the terms ldquohigh riserdquo and ldquolow riserdquo have been used in slightly differentmeanings we should be careful to prevent our results from being generalized to other distinc-tions In descriptions of British English ldquohigh risesrdquo are usually distinguished from ldquolow

201C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

risesrdquo on the basis of the end point For instance Halliday (1970) and OrsquoConnor and Arnold(1973) identify a rise from midlow to high (the ldquohigh riserdquo) as well as one from low tomidlow (the ldquolow riserdquo) Tench (1996) distinguishes low neutral and high rises on thebasis of the end point Crystal (1969) distinguishes three beginning points (high mediumlow) and three excursion sizes (wide normal narrow) to give nine categorically differentrises We believe that the rises described by these authors are versions of the L H-(H)contour with different pitch ranges Indeed the spoken illustrations accompanyingHalliday (1970) sound like such contours although the high rise is described as having amidlow beginning Cruttenden (1997 pp 51ndash 52) recognizes a (British) ldquolow riserdquo (ielow- range L L- H) as a category distinct from H H-H but suggests that wide-range L H-H and H H-H should be seen as a single category He also suggests thatH H-H is frequent in General American but has a low frequency of occurrence in BritishEnglish where the (British) ldquolow riserdquo tends to be used instead (see also 1997 pp 88 99)Cruttenden (1995) points out that utterance -final rises are on the increase in SouthernBritish speech among which there may well be ldquohigh risesrdquo (see also House 1998)

The description of Dutch intonation offered in rsquot Hart et al (1990) which makes nodistinction between the ldquohigh riserdquo and the ldquolow riserdquo could be modified so as to allow thecombination ldquo3rdquo (a late accent-lending rise) with ldquo2rdquo (equivalent to H) instead of justwith ldquoCrdquo (a nonaccent-lending fall) The combination ldquo32rdquo would then correspond to theldquolow riserdquo while ldquo12rdquo would represent only the ldquohigh riserdquo The description of Gussenhoven(1988 1991) which produces on a contour inventory based on phonological variations onthree basic pitch accents without ever producing a contour like the ldquohigh riserdquo should beaugmented with the contour H H which transcription adequately describes the two targetsof the ldquohigh riserdquo (see also Footnote 1)

Finally a more general conclusion In Experiment 3 we have seen how an investi-gation of the perceptual effects of pitch range led to a confirmation of a particular tonalanalysis of rising intonations This illustrates the importance of basing our data on as widea range of observations as possible The consideration of pitch range variation appears notonly to be relevant for studying models of phonetic implementation (cf Liberman ampPierrehumbert 1984) but also for models of phonological structure Indeed GrabeGussenhoven Haan Marsi and Post (1997) illustrates how studying the perception ofspeaker attitudes can lead to meaningful conclusions about intonational structure Theincreased interest for intonational meaning that seems to be detectable in experimentalresearch may therefore well lead to an improved understanding of morphology andphonology of intonation

Received January 18 1999 revised manuscript received September 22 1999 accepted December 6 1999

202 H and L in Dutch rising contours

REFERENCES

BARD E G ROBERTSON D amp SORACE A (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic accept-ability Language 72 32ndash68

BECKMAN M amp PIERREHUMBERT J B (1986) Intonational structure in English and JapanesePhonological Yearbook 3 255ndash310

BOERSMA P amp WEENINK D lthttpfonsg3letuvanlpraatgtBRUCE G (1990) Alignment and composition of tonal accents Comments on Silverman and

Pierrehumbertrsquos paper In J Kingston amp M Beckman (Eds) Papers in laboratory phonologyBetween the grammar and physics of speech (pp107ndash 114) Cambridge UK CambridgeUniversity Press

COLLIER R amp rsquot HART J (1980) Cursus Nederlandse IntonateLouvain AccoCOLLINS B amp MEES I (1981) The sounds of English The Hague Leiden University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1997) Intonation (2nd ed) Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1995) Rises in English In J Windsor Lewis (Ed) Studies in general and English

phonetics (pp155ndash173) London RoutledgeCRYSTAL D (1969) Prosodic systems and intonation in English Cambridge UK Cambridge

University PressERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H BECKMAN M E amp NIIMI S (1994) Global pitch range

and the production of low tones in English intonation International Conference on the Processingof Spoken Language 3 651ndash654

ERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H amp BECKMAN M E (1996) The production of low tonesin English intonation Journal of Phonetics 23 179ndash188

FANT G amp KRUCKENBERG A (1994) Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish SpeedTransmission Laboratorymdash Quarterly Status and Progress Report 2ndash 3 (pp125ndash 144) Alsopublished in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody 1994 Yokohama Japan

GRABE E GUSSENHOVEN C HAAN J MARSI E amp POST B (1997) Preaccentual pitch andspeaker attitude in Dutch Language and Speech 41 63ndash85

GUSSENHOVEN C (1988) Adequacy in intonation analysis The case of Dutch In H van der Hulstamp N Smith (Eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology (pp95ndash121) DordrechtForis

GUSSENHOVEN C (1991) Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch In T F Shannon amp J P Snapper(Eds) The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp139ndash 155) Lanham MDUniversity Press of America

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1988) Fundamental frequency declination in DutchTesting three hypotheses Journal of Phonetics 16 355ndash369

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1991) An experimental evaluation of two nuclear tonetaxonomies Linguistics 29 423ndash449

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1992) A target-interpolation model for the intonation of DutchICSLP2 (pp1235ndash1238)

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1997) Empirical evidence for the contrast between L andH in Dutch rising contours In A Botinis G Kouroupetroglou amp G Caryannis (Eds) Inton-ation Theory models and application Proceedings of ESCA workshop (pp169ndash172) AthensESCA and University of Athens

GUSSENHOVEN C REPP B H RIETVELD T RUMP H H amp TERKEN J (1997) The perceptualprominence of fundamental frequency peaks Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1023009ndash3022

HALLIDAY M A K (1970) IntonationLondon Oxford University Pressrsquot HART J COLLIER R amp COHEN A (1990) A perceptual study of intonation An experimental

phonetic approach Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressHOUSE J (1998) Review of Tench (1996) English Language and Linguistics 2 137ndash139

196 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for T began at one-tenth of the duration of the vowel after the CV boundary followingan 80ms rise in the case of H and a 20 ms fall in the case of L each starting at 100Hzthe end point of the prehead Except in the case of the final word duur the target of Lwas 80 ms long The target for H- after L and that of HH- (which have a single F0) ceased100ms before the target of H The end point of the final rise was located at the pointwhere the F0 reached a peak in the original contour which resulted in final voiced levelstretches varying from 0 (duur) to 70 ms (afgekomen) The target for L on duur lasted100 ms which left 80 ms for the final rise As before these values were arrived at on thebasis of the naturally spoken utterances and informal judgments of the naturalness of theartif icial contours

The total number of stimuli was 72 (2 contours acute 9 versions acute 4 sentences) We added24 fillers equally divided over the four source utterances with a variety of realization ofa L H L-H (ie a rising -falling -rising) contour This was done in order to increasethe intonational variety in the test These 96 items were randomized twice and each orderwas recorded onto digital tape preceded by ten practice stimuli of which the first eightwere identif ied as such in the instruction sheet and followed by two closing stimuli TheInter-Stimulus Interval was 45s The 108 stimuli (4 sentences acute 2 contours acute 9 versions=72 + 10 practice stimuli + 2 closing stimuli + 24 fillers) were presented in seven blocks of15 and one block of 3 Each block corresponded to a page on the answer sheet and waspreceded by a brief excerpt from a piano recital to give listeners an opportunity to relaxand turn the page The musical excerpt was followed by a 6 s pause and an anchor stimuluswhich was a pronunciation of the phrase Maal honderdTIEN ( lsquotimes a hundred -and -tenrsquo) produced by the same speaker who produced the source utterances realized with aL H L-H contour with a peak of 144 Hz and a low baseline of 110 Hz The degree ofsurprise realized in this anchor stimulus was said to lie exactly halfway on the scale InExperiment 1 we had an anchor stimulus before every stimulus This seemed to usunnecessary by the time we were designing Experiment 3 Pilot research without any anchorstimuli by Hedi Klein Tank had shown that for each page in the answer booklet the variancein the scores was positively correlated with serial position on the page It would appeartherefore that without anchors judges lose some of their orientation on the scale at theturn of each page Anchoring the scale at exactly those points in the test would thus seemto be the appropriate procedure

Two groups of subjects aged between 19 and 30 were recruited from the studentpopulation of Nijmegen one consisting of 15 and the other of 14 subjects The two tapeseach with a different random order of the stimuli were played at a comfortable volume vialoudspeakers to the two groups of subjects Judges were asked to rate the degree of surpriseexpressed by the intonation of each stimulus by placing a mark on a 100mm scale as inExperiment I They were paid a small fee

Results

Scores were obtained as for Experiment 1 An Analysis of Variance (repeated measures)was carried out to assess the influence of the independent variables on the scores Fourwithin -subject factors were included in the design ACCENT- LOCATION (early late)CONTOUR (L H-H vs H H-H) HEIGHT-OF-T (3 levels) and HEIGHT-OF-H (3 levels) In order to have an appropriate ratio between the number of independent

197C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

variables and the number of subjects scores were pooled over the four sentences nestedunder ACCENT- LOCATION Adopting a significance level of 05 we found the followingsignificant main effects CONTOUR F (128)= 1281 p= 001 HEIGHT-OF -TF(256)=5997 plt 001 and HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)=2603 plt 001 Two-way inter-actions were obtained for ACCENT- LOCATION CONTOUR F(256)= 6317 plt 001ACCENT- LOCATION acute HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)= 1187 plt001 and CONTOURacute HEIGHT-OF-T F (256)= 504 p=01 Where appropriate all significance levels wereHuynh-Feldt corrected

The important result here is the interaction between CONTOUR and HEIGHT-OF-T It indicates that raising the beginning of the rise does not have the same effect in thelow rise as it has in the high rise In order to assess the extent to which the scores variedas a function of the beginning of the rise in the L H-H and H H-H contours a trendanalysis (SPSS-MANOVA) was carried out on the data with a polynomial fitted consistingof a linear and a quadratic component An overall linear component as a function ofHEIGHT-OF-T was found to be significant F(128)= 7503 plt001 which interactedsignificantly with the factor CONTOUR F(128)= 810 p=008 The quadratic componentwas not significant

Figure 3 in which the scores for L and H are plotted for different levels of Hshows the crucial interaction graphically Data are pooled over four sentences In the toppanel we see that the lowest value (130 Hz) for H resulted in the lowest level of perceivedsurprise while the highest value (160Hz) expresses the highest degree In the bottom panelthe inverse relation is apparent for L Also the constant effect of H can be clearly seenin both contour types the degree of perceived surprise increases with increasing values ofH with only the stimuli combining L = 80 Hz and H= 185 Hz falling somewhat abovethe expected location

Discussion

The results of Experiment 3 replicate those obtained for perceived surprise in Experiment 2The conclusion must be that ldquohigh risesrdquo and ldquolow risesrdquo form separate phonological cate-gories in Dutch and moreover that ldquolow risesrdquo begin with L and ldquohigh risesrdquo begin withH We will return to this finding in the General Discussion

The effect of ACCENT- LOCATION and its significant interactions with CONTOURand HEIGHT-OF-H are of less interest The first interaction is due to the fact thatscores for the high rise are considerably higher for final accents than for nonfinal accentswhile those for the low rise are less affected by accent location and show a less extremebut opposite pattern Figure 4 presents the scores separately for final and nonfinal accents(pooled over two sentences) showing this interaction in nonfinal position high risingcontours convey less surprise than low- rising contours (panels (b) and (d)) while in finalposition this is not the case (cf panels (a) and (c)) Since the most striking data here arethe low scores for the high rise in nonfinal position this result can be explained by the factthat in these contours two relatively small F0- rises are divided over two syllables Bycontrast in the three other conditions the rises are either piled on top of each other (finalaccent) or the first of them is considerably larger (low rise on nonfinal accent) Lastly theinteraction between ACCENT- LOCATION and HEIGHT-OF-H is due to the greaterdifferentiation of the scores for H in final-accented rising stimuli as compared with those

198 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for the corresponding stimuli with nonfinal accents This effect visible in panels (a) and(c) versus (b) and (d) in Figure 4 is most probably to be explained on the basis of the greatersalience of H in rising contours that serve to accent final syllables

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In a series of experiments we investigated the behavior of Dutch rising nuclear contours asa function of changes in pitch range by asking listeners to rate such contours on perceivedattributes believed to be expressed through variations in pitch range Our interest in the firsttwo experiments was in the behavior of L which had been claimed to be lowered withincreasing pitch range The first attribute we investigated prominence (Experiment 1)showed that perceived prominence is not an appropriate response variable since listenersperceive prominence in terms of salient pitch characteristics in the accented syllablerather than of the entire contour as realized over a polysyllabic stretch of speech In effectthey ignored the beginning of the rising movement in contours with final accent and theend in contours with nonfinal accent Experiment 2 which was undertaken to see if oneor more of the attributes ldquosurpriserdquo ldquoinsistencerdquo and ldquoindignationrdquo was perceived as afunction of the entire contour showed that perceived surprise correlated with the pitchrange if pitch range is assumed to be increased by raising H-tones but lowering L Onthe basis of the results of Experiment 3 in which the L H-H contour was compared withthe H H-H contour we found that perceived surprise is higher as the end of the rising

(a)

Figure 3

Perceived surprise as a function of H andH (panel (a)) and L and H (panel (b))

(b)

199C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

contour is higher but that the effect of the beginning of the rising contour in the accentedsyllable depends on whether relative to the preceding pitch it begins low in which casegreater surprise is signaled by lower pitch or high in which case the opposite is true

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these findings First it may not be usefulto consider perceived prominence to be an interesting attribute of a nuclear contour like LH-H or of the nuclear accent L It is of course common to think about pitch accents asdiscrete elements which are either present or absent and to believe that when presentthey have some level of prominence or strength This ldquoaccent strengthrdquo is we like to thinka function of the pitch level and pitch span specifications of the contour (Gussenhoven etal 1997) but it would now appear that information about these specifications cannot alwaysbe obtained by asking listeners to rate syllables (accents words or phrases) for perceivedprominence since these judgments are strongly influenced by the contextually determinedshape of the pitch contour in the accented syllable such that final and nonfinal accentedsyllables may receive very different reactions even if the pitch targets are identical

Figure 4

Perceived surprise as a function of H and H (top panels) and of L and H (bottom panels)for stimuli with final accents (panels (a) and (c)) and nonfinal accents (panels (b) and (d))separately

200 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Second one way in which speakers can convey surprise in Dutch is by increasing thepitch range as conceived by Liberman -Pierrehumbert lowering L and raising H-tones(A caveat is in order for speaker gender our results are based on the evaluation of malespeech) There are reports however that suggest that L- tones go up when the pitch rangeis increased Erickson Honda Hirai Beckman and Niimi (1994) show that increased levelsof vocal effort (soft voice normal voice loud voice) correlate with F0 of L in English theloud voice has the highest L- tones These findings are not contradictory however if thedistinction between pitch level and pitch span (Ladd 1996 p 260) is observed Restrictingourselves to within -speaker variation the strategy of overall raising of the pitch level whichwould only appear to be possible for the whole contour should perhaps be associated withhigher levels of arousal As was observed in the Discussion for Experiment 2 indignationis possibly expressed in this way as can be concluded on the basis of our finding thathigher targets for L lead to higher perceived indignation in two of the three types of stimuliAlso ldquospeaking uprdquo may employ this type of variation as suggested by the results ofErickson et al (1994) where the overall pitch raising may be seen as due to the effort toproduce a signal that carries over a greater distance By contrast expansion of the pitchspan is more appropriate for increases in what we might call intonational ldquoexplicitnessrdquoto be used when expressing emphasis or surprise and possibly in utterances that serve ascorrections of earlier utterances that were misunderstood or to listeners who are (believedto be) hard of hearing

The third conclusion is most immediately related to the purpose of our experimentsThe results of Experiment 3 provide strong support for the phonological analysis of risesby Pierrehumbert (1980) who described the equivalent American English contours as LH -H (low rise) and H H- H (high rise) respectively In combination with theassumption made in Liberman and Pierrehumbert (1984) that L is lowered but H-tonesraised when the pitch range is increased that analysis accurately explains the resultsobtained That is L H H and H H-H are categorically distinct contours of DutchThe alternative interpretation by which the contours corresponding to these transcriptionsform a single phonological class and represent different realizations varying merely ingradient pitch range must be excluded If our stimuli represented different realizations ofthe same phonological contour we would have expected the phonetic variation from highto low pitch in the accented syllable to have a uniform effect on the perception of the gradientattribute ldquosurpriserdquo

We must be careful to restrict our hypothesis that increased pitch span is achieved bylowering F0 to starred L- tones in Dutch Other L- tones may not behave in the same wayIndeed Fant and Kruckenberg (1994) found for Swedish that greater emphasis causes thelow F0 of Accent 2 to be lower but the low F0 for Accent 1 as well as all other targets tobe higher suggesting that not all L- tones are treated alike As observed by Ladd(forthcoming) the standard analysis (eg Bruce 1990) which analyzes Accent 1 as HLand Accent 2 as HL does not predict this result since one would sooner expect the L ofAccent 1 than the unstarred L- tone of Accent 2 to define the lower boundary of the pitchspan and thus be lowered with increased emphasis

Because the terms ldquohigh riserdquo and ldquolow riserdquo have been used in slightly differentmeanings we should be careful to prevent our results from being generalized to other distinc-tions In descriptions of British English ldquohigh risesrdquo are usually distinguished from ldquolow

201C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

risesrdquo on the basis of the end point For instance Halliday (1970) and OrsquoConnor and Arnold(1973) identify a rise from midlow to high (the ldquohigh riserdquo) as well as one from low tomidlow (the ldquolow riserdquo) Tench (1996) distinguishes low neutral and high rises on thebasis of the end point Crystal (1969) distinguishes three beginning points (high mediumlow) and three excursion sizes (wide normal narrow) to give nine categorically differentrises We believe that the rises described by these authors are versions of the L H-(H)contour with different pitch ranges Indeed the spoken illustrations accompanyingHalliday (1970) sound like such contours although the high rise is described as having amidlow beginning Cruttenden (1997 pp 51ndash 52) recognizes a (British) ldquolow riserdquo (ielow- range L L- H) as a category distinct from H H-H but suggests that wide-range L H-H and H H-H should be seen as a single category He also suggests thatH H-H is frequent in General American but has a low frequency of occurrence in BritishEnglish where the (British) ldquolow riserdquo tends to be used instead (see also 1997 pp 88 99)Cruttenden (1995) points out that utterance -final rises are on the increase in SouthernBritish speech among which there may well be ldquohigh risesrdquo (see also House 1998)

The description of Dutch intonation offered in rsquot Hart et al (1990) which makes nodistinction between the ldquohigh riserdquo and the ldquolow riserdquo could be modified so as to allow thecombination ldquo3rdquo (a late accent-lending rise) with ldquo2rdquo (equivalent to H) instead of justwith ldquoCrdquo (a nonaccent-lending fall) The combination ldquo32rdquo would then correspond to theldquolow riserdquo while ldquo12rdquo would represent only the ldquohigh riserdquo The description of Gussenhoven(1988 1991) which produces on a contour inventory based on phonological variations onthree basic pitch accents without ever producing a contour like the ldquohigh riserdquo should beaugmented with the contour H H which transcription adequately describes the two targetsof the ldquohigh riserdquo (see also Footnote 1)

Finally a more general conclusion In Experiment 3 we have seen how an investi-gation of the perceptual effects of pitch range led to a confirmation of a particular tonalanalysis of rising intonations This illustrates the importance of basing our data on as widea range of observations as possible The consideration of pitch range variation appears notonly to be relevant for studying models of phonetic implementation (cf Liberman ampPierrehumbert 1984) but also for models of phonological structure Indeed GrabeGussenhoven Haan Marsi and Post (1997) illustrates how studying the perception ofspeaker attitudes can lead to meaningful conclusions about intonational structure Theincreased interest for intonational meaning that seems to be detectable in experimentalresearch may therefore well lead to an improved understanding of morphology andphonology of intonation

Received January 18 1999 revised manuscript received September 22 1999 accepted December 6 1999

202 H and L in Dutch rising contours

REFERENCES

BARD E G ROBERTSON D amp SORACE A (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic accept-ability Language 72 32ndash68

BECKMAN M amp PIERREHUMBERT J B (1986) Intonational structure in English and JapanesePhonological Yearbook 3 255ndash310

BOERSMA P amp WEENINK D lthttpfonsg3letuvanlpraatgtBRUCE G (1990) Alignment and composition of tonal accents Comments on Silverman and

Pierrehumbertrsquos paper In J Kingston amp M Beckman (Eds) Papers in laboratory phonologyBetween the grammar and physics of speech (pp107ndash 114) Cambridge UK CambridgeUniversity Press

COLLIER R amp rsquot HART J (1980) Cursus Nederlandse IntonateLouvain AccoCOLLINS B amp MEES I (1981) The sounds of English The Hague Leiden University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1997) Intonation (2nd ed) Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1995) Rises in English In J Windsor Lewis (Ed) Studies in general and English

phonetics (pp155ndash173) London RoutledgeCRYSTAL D (1969) Prosodic systems and intonation in English Cambridge UK Cambridge

University PressERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H BECKMAN M E amp NIIMI S (1994) Global pitch range

and the production of low tones in English intonation International Conference on the Processingof Spoken Language 3 651ndash654

ERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H amp BECKMAN M E (1996) The production of low tonesin English intonation Journal of Phonetics 23 179ndash188

FANT G amp KRUCKENBERG A (1994) Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish SpeedTransmission Laboratorymdash Quarterly Status and Progress Report 2ndash 3 (pp125ndash 144) Alsopublished in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody 1994 Yokohama Japan

GRABE E GUSSENHOVEN C HAAN J MARSI E amp POST B (1997) Preaccentual pitch andspeaker attitude in Dutch Language and Speech 41 63ndash85

GUSSENHOVEN C (1988) Adequacy in intonation analysis The case of Dutch In H van der Hulstamp N Smith (Eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology (pp95ndash121) DordrechtForis

GUSSENHOVEN C (1991) Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch In T F Shannon amp J P Snapper(Eds) The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp139ndash 155) Lanham MDUniversity Press of America

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1988) Fundamental frequency declination in DutchTesting three hypotheses Journal of Phonetics 16 355ndash369

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1991) An experimental evaluation of two nuclear tonetaxonomies Linguistics 29 423ndash449

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1992) A target-interpolation model for the intonation of DutchICSLP2 (pp1235ndash1238)

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1997) Empirical evidence for the contrast between L andH in Dutch rising contours In A Botinis G Kouroupetroglou amp G Caryannis (Eds) Inton-ation Theory models and application Proceedings of ESCA workshop (pp169ndash172) AthensESCA and University of Athens

GUSSENHOVEN C REPP B H RIETVELD T RUMP H H amp TERKEN J (1997) The perceptualprominence of fundamental frequency peaks Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1023009ndash3022

HALLIDAY M A K (1970) IntonationLondon Oxford University Pressrsquot HART J COLLIER R amp COHEN A (1990) A perceptual study of intonation An experimental

phonetic approach Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressHOUSE J (1998) Review of Tench (1996) English Language and Linguistics 2 137ndash139

197C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

variables and the number of subjects scores were pooled over the four sentences nestedunder ACCENT- LOCATION Adopting a significance level of 05 we found the followingsignificant main effects CONTOUR F (128)= 1281 p= 001 HEIGHT-OF -TF(256)=5997 plt 001 and HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)=2603 plt 001 Two-way inter-actions were obtained for ACCENT- LOCATION CONTOUR F(256)= 6317 plt 001ACCENT- LOCATION acute HEIGHT-OF-H F(256)= 1187 plt001 and CONTOURacute HEIGHT-OF-T F (256)= 504 p=01 Where appropriate all significance levels wereHuynh-Feldt corrected

The important result here is the interaction between CONTOUR and HEIGHT-OF-T It indicates that raising the beginning of the rise does not have the same effect in thelow rise as it has in the high rise In order to assess the extent to which the scores variedas a function of the beginning of the rise in the L H-H and H H-H contours a trendanalysis (SPSS-MANOVA) was carried out on the data with a polynomial fitted consistingof a linear and a quadratic component An overall linear component as a function ofHEIGHT-OF-T was found to be significant F(128)= 7503 plt001 which interactedsignificantly with the factor CONTOUR F(128)= 810 p=008 The quadratic componentwas not significant

Figure 3 in which the scores for L and H are plotted for different levels of Hshows the crucial interaction graphically Data are pooled over four sentences In the toppanel we see that the lowest value (130 Hz) for H resulted in the lowest level of perceivedsurprise while the highest value (160Hz) expresses the highest degree In the bottom panelthe inverse relation is apparent for L Also the constant effect of H can be clearly seenin both contour types the degree of perceived surprise increases with increasing values ofH with only the stimuli combining L = 80 Hz and H= 185 Hz falling somewhat abovethe expected location

Discussion

The results of Experiment 3 replicate those obtained for perceived surprise in Experiment 2The conclusion must be that ldquohigh risesrdquo and ldquolow risesrdquo form separate phonological cate-gories in Dutch and moreover that ldquolow risesrdquo begin with L and ldquohigh risesrdquo begin withH We will return to this finding in the General Discussion

The effect of ACCENT- LOCATION and its significant interactions with CONTOURand HEIGHT-OF-H are of less interest The first interaction is due to the fact thatscores for the high rise are considerably higher for final accents than for nonfinal accentswhile those for the low rise are less affected by accent location and show a less extremebut opposite pattern Figure 4 presents the scores separately for final and nonfinal accents(pooled over two sentences) showing this interaction in nonfinal position high risingcontours convey less surprise than low- rising contours (panels (b) and (d)) while in finalposition this is not the case (cf panels (a) and (c)) Since the most striking data here arethe low scores for the high rise in nonfinal position this result can be explained by the factthat in these contours two relatively small F0- rises are divided over two syllables Bycontrast in the three other conditions the rises are either piled on top of each other (finalaccent) or the first of them is considerably larger (low rise on nonfinal accent) Lastly theinteraction between ACCENT- LOCATION and HEIGHT-OF-H is due to the greaterdifferentiation of the scores for H in final-accented rising stimuli as compared with those

198 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for the corresponding stimuli with nonfinal accents This effect visible in panels (a) and(c) versus (b) and (d) in Figure 4 is most probably to be explained on the basis of the greatersalience of H in rising contours that serve to accent final syllables

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In a series of experiments we investigated the behavior of Dutch rising nuclear contours asa function of changes in pitch range by asking listeners to rate such contours on perceivedattributes believed to be expressed through variations in pitch range Our interest in the firsttwo experiments was in the behavior of L which had been claimed to be lowered withincreasing pitch range The first attribute we investigated prominence (Experiment 1)showed that perceived prominence is not an appropriate response variable since listenersperceive prominence in terms of salient pitch characteristics in the accented syllablerather than of the entire contour as realized over a polysyllabic stretch of speech In effectthey ignored the beginning of the rising movement in contours with final accent and theend in contours with nonfinal accent Experiment 2 which was undertaken to see if oneor more of the attributes ldquosurpriserdquo ldquoinsistencerdquo and ldquoindignationrdquo was perceived as afunction of the entire contour showed that perceived surprise correlated with the pitchrange if pitch range is assumed to be increased by raising H-tones but lowering L Onthe basis of the results of Experiment 3 in which the L H-H contour was compared withthe H H-H contour we found that perceived surprise is higher as the end of the rising

(a)

Figure 3

Perceived surprise as a function of H andH (panel (a)) and L and H (panel (b))

(b)

199C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

contour is higher but that the effect of the beginning of the rising contour in the accentedsyllable depends on whether relative to the preceding pitch it begins low in which casegreater surprise is signaled by lower pitch or high in which case the opposite is true

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these findings First it may not be usefulto consider perceived prominence to be an interesting attribute of a nuclear contour like LH-H or of the nuclear accent L It is of course common to think about pitch accents asdiscrete elements which are either present or absent and to believe that when presentthey have some level of prominence or strength This ldquoaccent strengthrdquo is we like to thinka function of the pitch level and pitch span specifications of the contour (Gussenhoven etal 1997) but it would now appear that information about these specifications cannot alwaysbe obtained by asking listeners to rate syllables (accents words or phrases) for perceivedprominence since these judgments are strongly influenced by the contextually determinedshape of the pitch contour in the accented syllable such that final and nonfinal accentedsyllables may receive very different reactions even if the pitch targets are identical

Figure 4

Perceived surprise as a function of H and H (top panels) and of L and H (bottom panels)for stimuli with final accents (panels (a) and (c)) and nonfinal accents (panels (b) and (d))separately

200 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Second one way in which speakers can convey surprise in Dutch is by increasing thepitch range as conceived by Liberman -Pierrehumbert lowering L and raising H-tones(A caveat is in order for speaker gender our results are based on the evaluation of malespeech) There are reports however that suggest that L- tones go up when the pitch rangeis increased Erickson Honda Hirai Beckman and Niimi (1994) show that increased levelsof vocal effort (soft voice normal voice loud voice) correlate with F0 of L in English theloud voice has the highest L- tones These findings are not contradictory however if thedistinction between pitch level and pitch span (Ladd 1996 p 260) is observed Restrictingourselves to within -speaker variation the strategy of overall raising of the pitch level whichwould only appear to be possible for the whole contour should perhaps be associated withhigher levels of arousal As was observed in the Discussion for Experiment 2 indignationis possibly expressed in this way as can be concluded on the basis of our finding thathigher targets for L lead to higher perceived indignation in two of the three types of stimuliAlso ldquospeaking uprdquo may employ this type of variation as suggested by the results ofErickson et al (1994) where the overall pitch raising may be seen as due to the effort toproduce a signal that carries over a greater distance By contrast expansion of the pitchspan is more appropriate for increases in what we might call intonational ldquoexplicitnessrdquoto be used when expressing emphasis or surprise and possibly in utterances that serve ascorrections of earlier utterances that were misunderstood or to listeners who are (believedto be) hard of hearing

The third conclusion is most immediately related to the purpose of our experimentsThe results of Experiment 3 provide strong support for the phonological analysis of risesby Pierrehumbert (1980) who described the equivalent American English contours as LH -H (low rise) and H H- H (high rise) respectively In combination with theassumption made in Liberman and Pierrehumbert (1984) that L is lowered but H-tonesraised when the pitch range is increased that analysis accurately explains the resultsobtained That is L H H and H H-H are categorically distinct contours of DutchThe alternative interpretation by which the contours corresponding to these transcriptionsform a single phonological class and represent different realizations varying merely ingradient pitch range must be excluded If our stimuli represented different realizations ofthe same phonological contour we would have expected the phonetic variation from highto low pitch in the accented syllable to have a uniform effect on the perception of the gradientattribute ldquosurpriserdquo

We must be careful to restrict our hypothesis that increased pitch span is achieved bylowering F0 to starred L- tones in Dutch Other L- tones may not behave in the same wayIndeed Fant and Kruckenberg (1994) found for Swedish that greater emphasis causes thelow F0 of Accent 2 to be lower but the low F0 for Accent 1 as well as all other targets tobe higher suggesting that not all L- tones are treated alike As observed by Ladd(forthcoming) the standard analysis (eg Bruce 1990) which analyzes Accent 1 as HLand Accent 2 as HL does not predict this result since one would sooner expect the L ofAccent 1 than the unstarred L- tone of Accent 2 to define the lower boundary of the pitchspan and thus be lowered with increased emphasis

Because the terms ldquohigh riserdquo and ldquolow riserdquo have been used in slightly differentmeanings we should be careful to prevent our results from being generalized to other distinc-tions In descriptions of British English ldquohigh risesrdquo are usually distinguished from ldquolow

201C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

risesrdquo on the basis of the end point For instance Halliday (1970) and OrsquoConnor and Arnold(1973) identify a rise from midlow to high (the ldquohigh riserdquo) as well as one from low tomidlow (the ldquolow riserdquo) Tench (1996) distinguishes low neutral and high rises on thebasis of the end point Crystal (1969) distinguishes three beginning points (high mediumlow) and three excursion sizes (wide normal narrow) to give nine categorically differentrises We believe that the rises described by these authors are versions of the L H-(H)contour with different pitch ranges Indeed the spoken illustrations accompanyingHalliday (1970) sound like such contours although the high rise is described as having amidlow beginning Cruttenden (1997 pp 51ndash 52) recognizes a (British) ldquolow riserdquo (ielow- range L L- H) as a category distinct from H H-H but suggests that wide-range L H-H and H H-H should be seen as a single category He also suggests thatH H-H is frequent in General American but has a low frequency of occurrence in BritishEnglish where the (British) ldquolow riserdquo tends to be used instead (see also 1997 pp 88 99)Cruttenden (1995) points out that utterance -final rises are on the increase in SouthernBritish speech among which there may well be ldquohigh risesrdquo (see also House 1998)

The description of Dutch intonation offered in rsquot Hart et al (1990) which makes nodistinction between the ldquohigh riserdquo and the ldquolow riserdquo could be modified so as to allow thecombination ldquo3rdquo (a late accent-lending rise) with ldquo2rdquo (equivalent to H) instead of justwith ldquoCrdquo (a nonaccent-lending fall) The combination ldquo32rdquo would then correspond to theldquolow riserdquo while ldquo12rdquo would represent only the ldquohigh riserdquo The description of Gussenhoven(1988 1991) which produces on a contour inventory based on phonological variations onthree basic pitch accents without ever producing a contour like the ldquohigh riserdquo should beaugmented with the contour H H which transcription adequately describes the two targetsof the ldquohigh riserdquo (see also Footnote 1)

Finally a more general conclusion In Experiment 3 we have seen how an investi-gation of the perceptual effects of pitch range led to a confirmation of a particular tonalanalysis of rising intonations This illustrates the importance of basing our data on as widea range of observations as possible The consideration of pitch range variation appears notonly to be relevant for studying models of phonetic implementation (cf Liberman ampPierrehumbert 1984) but also for models of phonological structure Indeed GrabeGussenhoven Haan Marsi and Post (1997) illustrates how studying the perception ofspeaker attitudes can lead to meaningful conclusions about intonational structure Theincreased interest for intonational meaning that seems to be detectable in experimentalresearch may therefore well lead to an improved understanding of morphology andphonology of intonation

Received January 18 1999 revised manuscript received September 22 1999 accepted December 6 1999

202 H and L in Dutch rising contours

REFERENCES

BARD E G ROBERTSON D amp SORACE A (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic accept-ability Language 72 32ndash68

BECKMAN M amp PIERREHUMBERT J B (1986) Intonational structure in English and JapanesePhonological Yearbook 3 255ndash310

BOERSMA P amp WEENINK D lthttpfonsg3letuvanlpraatgtBRUCE G (1990) Alignment and composition of tonal accents Comments on Silverman and

Pierrehumbertrsquos paper In J Kingston amp M Beckman (Eds) Papers in laboratory phonologyBetween the grammar and physics of speech (pp107ndash 114) Cambridge UK CambridgeUniversity Press

COLLIER R amp rsquot HART J (1980) Cursus Nederlandse IntonateLouvain AccoCOLLINS B amp MEES I (1981) The sounds of English The Hague Leiden University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1997) Intonation (2nd ed) Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1995) Rises in English In J Windsor Lewis (Ed) Studies in general and English

phonetics (pp155ndash173) London RoutledgeCRYSTAL D (1969) Prosodic systems and intonation in English Cambridge UK Cambridge

University PressERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H BECKMAN M E amp NIIMI S (1994) Global pitch range

and the production of low tones in English intonation International Conference on the Processingof Spoken Language 3 651ndash654

ERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H amp BECKMAN M E (1996) The production of low tonesin English intonation Journal of Phonetics 23 179ndash188

FANT G amp KRUCKENBERG A (1994) Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish SpeedTransmission Laboratorymdash Quarterly Status and Progress Report 2ndash 3 (pp125ndash 144) Alsopublished in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody 1994 Yokohama Japan

GRABE E GUSSENHOVEN C HAAN J MARSI E amp POST B (1997) Preaccentual pitch andspeaker attitude in Dutch Language and Speech 41 63ndash85

GUSSENHOVEN C (1988) Adequacy in intonation analysis The case of Dutch In H van der Hulstamp N Smith (Eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology (pp95ndash121) DordrechtForis

GUSSENHOVEN C (1991) Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch In T F Shannon amp J P Snapper(Eds) The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp139ndash 155) Lanham MDUniversity Press of America

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1988) Fundamental frequency declination in DutchTesting three hypotheses Journal of Phonetics 16 355ndash369

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1991) An experimental evaluation of two nuclear tonetaxonomies Linguistics 29 423ndash449

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1992) A target-interpolation model for the intonation of DutchICSLP2 (pp1235ndash1238)

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1997) Empirical evidence for the contrast between L andH in Dutch rising contours In A Botinis G Kouroupetroglou amp G Caryannis (Eds) Inton-ation Theory models and application Proceedings of ESCA workshop (pp169ndash172) AthensESCA and University of Athens

GUSSENHOVEN C REPP B H RIETVELD T RUMP H H amp TERKEN J (1997) The perceptualprominence of fundamental frequency peaks Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1023009ndash3022

HALLIDAY M A K (1970) IntonationLondon Oxford University Pressrsquot HART J COLLIER R amp COHEN A (1990) A perceptual study of intonation An experimental

phonetic approach Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressHOUSE J (1998) Review of Tench (1996) English Language and Linguistics 2 137ndash139

198 H and L in Dutch rising contours

for the corresponding stimuli with nonfinal accents This effect visible in panels (a) and(c) versus (b) and (d) in Figure 4 is most probably to be explained on the basis of the greatersalience of H in rising contours that serve to accent final syllables

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In a series of experiments we investigated the behavior of Dutch rising nuclear contours asa function of changes in pitch range by asking listeners to rate such contours on perceivedattributes believed to be expressed through variations in pitch range Our interest in the firsttwo experiments was in the behavior of L which had been claimed to be lowered withincreasing pitch range The first attribute we investigated prominence (Experiment 1)showed that perceived prominence is not an appropriate response variable since listenersperceive prominence in terms of salient pitch characteristics in the accented syllablerather than of the entire contour as realized over a polysyllabic stretch of speech In effectthey ignored the beginning of the rising movement in contours with final accent and theend in contours with nonfinal accent Experiment 2 which was undertaken to see if oneor more of the attributes ldquosurpriserdquo ldquoinsistencerdquo and ldquoindignationrdquo was perceived as afunction of the entire contour showed that perceived surprise correlated with the pitchrange if pitch range is assumed to be increased by raising H-tones but lowering L Onthe basis of the results of Experiment 3 in which the L H-H contour was compared withthe H H-H contour we found that perceived surprise is higher as the end of the rising

(a)

Figure 3

Perceived surprise as a function of H andH (panel (a)) and L and H (panel (b))

(b)

199C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

contour is higher but that the effect of the beginning of the rising contour in the accentedsyllable depends on whether relative to the preceding pitch it begins low in which casegreater surprise is signaled by lower pitch or high in which case the opposite is true

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these findings First it may not be usefulto consider perceived prominence to be an interesting attribute of a nuclear contour like LH-H or of the nuclear accent L It is of course common to think about pitch accents asdiscrete elements which are either present or absent and to believe that when presentthey have some level of prominence or strength This ldquoaccent strengthrdquo is we like to thinka function of the pitch level and pitch span specifications of the contour (Gussenhoven etal 1997) but it would now appear that information about these specifications cannot alwaysbe obtained by asking listeners to rate syllables (accents words or phrases) for perceivedprominence since these judgments are strongly influenced by the contextually determinedshape of the pitch contour in the accented syllable such that final and nonfinal accentedsyllables may receive very different reactions even if the pitch targets are identical

Figure 4

Perceived surprise as a function of H and H (top panels) and of L and H (bottom panels)for stimuli with final accents (panels (a) and (c)) and nonfinal accents (panels (b) and (d))separately

200 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Second one way in which speakers can convey surprise in Dutch is by increasing thepitch range as conceived by Liberman -Pierrehumbert lowering L and raising H-tones(A caveat is in order for speaker gender our results are based on the evaluation of malespeech) There are reports however that suggest that L- tones go up when the pitch rangeis increased Erickson Honda Hirai Beckman and Niimi (1994) show that increased levelsof vocal effort (soft voice normal voice loud voice) correlate with F0 of L in English theloud voice has the highest L- tones These findings are not contradictory however if thedistinction between pitch level and pitch span (Ladd 1996 p 260) is observed Restrictingourselves to within -speaker variation the strategy of overall raising of the pitch level whichwould only appear to be possible for the whole contour should perhaps be associated withhigher levels of arousal As was observed in the Discussion for Experiment 2 indignationis possibly expressed in this way as can be concluded on the basis of our finding thathigher targets for L lead to higher perceived indignation in two of the three types of stimuliAlso ldquospeaking uprdquo may employ this type of variation as suggested by the results ofErickson et al (1994) where the overall pitch raising may be seen as due to the effort toproduce a signal that carries over a greater distance By contrast expansion of the pitchspan is more appropriate for increases in what we might call intonational ldquoexplicitnessrdquoto be used when expressing emphasis or surprise and possibly in utterances that serve ascorrections of earlier utterances that were misunderstood or to listeners who are (believedto be) hard of hearing

The third conclusion is most immediately related to the purpose of our experimentsThe results of Experiment 3 provide strong support for the phonological analysis of risesby Pierrehumbert (1980) who described the equivalent American English contours as LH -H (low rise) and H H- H (high rise) respectively In combination with theassumption made in Liberman and Pierrehumbert (1984) that L is lowered but H-tonesraised when the pitch range is increased that analysis accurately explains the resultsobtained That is L H H and H H-H are categorically distinct contours of DutchThe alternative interpretation by which the contours corresponding to these transcriptionsform a single phonological class and represent different realizations varying merely ingradient pitch range must be excluded If our stimuli represented different realizations ofthe same phonological contour we would have expected the phonetic variation from highto low pitch in the accented syllable to have a uniform effect on the perception of the gradientattribute ldquosurpriserdquo

We must be careful to restrict our hypothesis that increased pitch span is achieved bylowering F0 to starred L- tones in Dutch Other L- tones may not behave in the same wayIndeed Fant and Kruckenberg (1994) found for Swedish that greater emphasis causes thelow F0 of Accent 2 to be lower but the low F0 for Accent 1 as well as all other targets tobe higher suggesting that not all L- tones are treated alike As observed by Ladd(forthcoming) the standard analysis (eg Bruce 1990) which analyzes Accent 1 as HLand Accent 2 as HL does not predict this result since one would sooner expect the L ofAccent 1 than the unstarred L- tone of Accent 2 to define the lower boundary of the pitchspan and thus be lowered with increased emphasis

Because the terms ldquohigh riserdquo and ldquolow riserdquo have been used in slightly differentmeanings we should be careful to prevent our results from being generalized to other distinc-tions In descriptions of British English ldquohigh risesrdquo are usually distinguished from ldquolow

201C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

risesrdquo on the basis of the end point For instance Halliday (1970) and OrsquoConnor and Arnold(1973) identify a rise from midlow to high (the ldquohigh riserdquo) as well as one from low tomidlow (the ldquolow riserdquo) Tench (1996) distinguishes low neutral and high rises on thebasis of the end point Crystal (1969) distinguishes three beginning points (high mediumlow) and three excursion sizes (wide normal narrow) to give nine categorically differentrises We believe that the rises described by these authors are versions of the L H-(H)contour with different pitch ranges Indeed the spoken illustrations accompanyingHalliday (1970) sound like such contours although the high rise is described as having amidlow beginning Cruttenden (1997 pp 51ndash 52) recognizes a (British) ldquolow riserdquo (ielow- range L L- H) as a category distinct from H H-H but suggests that wide-range L H-H and H H-H should be seen as a single category He also suggests thatH H-H is frequent in General American but has a low frequency of occurrence in BritishEnglish where the (British) ldquolow riserdquo tends to be used instead (see also 1997 pp 88 99)Cruttenden (1995) points out that utterance -final rises are on the increase in SouthernBritish speech among which there may well be ldquohigh risesrdquo (see also House 1998)

The description of Dutch intonation offered in rsquot Hart et al (1990) which makes nodistinction between the ldquohigh riserdquo and the ldquolow riserdquo could be modified so as to allow thecombination ldquo3rdquo (a late accent-lending rise) with ldquo2rdquo (equivalent to H) instead of justwith ldquoCrdquo (a nonaccent-lending fall) The combination ldquo32rdquo would then correspond to theldquolow riserdquo while ldquo12rdquo would represent only the ldquohigh riserdquo The description of Gussenhoven(1988 1991) which produces on a contour inventory based on phonological variations onthree basic pitch accents without ever producing a contour like the ldquohigh riserdquo should beaugmented with the contour H H which transcription adequately describes the two targetsof the ldquohigh riserdquo (see also Footnote 1)

Finally a more general conclusion In Experiment 3 we have seen how an investi-gation of the perceptual effects of pitch range led to a confirmation of a particular tonalanalysis of rising intonations This illustrates the importance of basing our data on as widea range of observations as possible The consideration of pitch range variation appears notonly to be relevant for studying models of phonetic implementation (cf Liberman ampPierrehumbert 1984) but also for models of phonological structure Indeed GrabeGussenhoven Haan Marsi and Post (1997) illustrates how studying the perception ofspeaker attitudes can lead to meaningful conclusions about intonational structure Theincreased interest for intonational meaning that seems to be detectable in experimentalresearch may therefore well lead to an improved understanding of morphology andphonology of intonation

Received January 18 1999 revised manuscript received September 22 1999 accepted December 6 1999

202 H and L in Dutch rising contours

REFERENCES

BARD E G ROBERTSON D amp SORACE A (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic accept-ability Language 72 32ndash68

BECKMAN M amp PIERREHUMBERT J B (1986) Intonational structure in English and JapanesePhonological Yearbook 3 255ndash310

BOERSMA P amp WEENINK D lthttpfonsg3letuvanlpraatgtBRUCE G (1990) Alignment and composition of tonal accents Comments on Silverman and

Pierrehumbertrsquos paper In J Kingston amp M Beckman (Eds) Papers in laboratory phonologyBetween the grammar and physics of speech (pp107ndash 114) Cambridge UK CambridgeUniversity Press

COLLIER R amp rsquot HART J (1980) Cursus Nederlandse IntonateLouvain AccoCOLLINS B amp MEES I (1981) The sounds of English The Hague Leiden University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1997) Intonation (2nd ed) Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1995) Rises in English In J Windsor Lewis (Ed) Studies in general and English

phonetics (pp155ndash173) London RoutledgeCRYSTAL D (1969) Prosodic systems and intonation in English Cambridge UK Cambridge

University PressERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H BECKMAN M E amp NIIMI S (1994) Global pitch range

and the production of low tones in English intonation International Conference on the Processingof Spoken Language 3 651ndash654

ERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H amp BECKMAN M E (1996) The production of low tonesin English intonation Journal of Phonetics 23 179ndash188

FANT G amp KRUCKENBERG A (1994) Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish SpeedTransmission Laboratorymdash Quarterly Status and Progress Report 2ndash 3 (pp125ndash 144) Alsopublished in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody 1994 Yokohama Japan

GRABE E GUSSENHOVEN C HAAN J MARSI E amp POST B (1997) Preaccentual pitch andspeaker attitude in Dutch Language and Speech 41 63ndash85

GUSSENHOVEN C (1988) Adequacy in intonation analysis The case of Dutch In H van der Hulstamp N Smith (Eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology (pp95ndash121) DordrechtForis

GUSSENHOVEN C (1991) Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch In T F Shannon amp J P Snapper(Eds) The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp139ndash 155) Lanham MDUniversity Press of America

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1988) Fundamental frequency declination in DutchTesting three hypotheses Journal of Phonetics 16 355ndash369

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1991) An experimental evaluation of two nuclear tonetaxonomies Linguistics 29 423ndash449

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1992) A target-interpolation model for the intonation of DutchICSLP2 (pp1235ndash1238)

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1997) Empirical evidence for the contrast between L andH in Dutch rising contours In A Botinis G Kouroupetroglou amp G Caryannis (Eds) Inton-ation Theory models and application Proceedings of ESCA workshop (pp169ndash172) AthensESCA and University of Athens

GUSSENHOVEN C REPP B H RIETVELD T RUMP H H amp TERKEN J (1997) The perceptualprominence of fundamental frequency peaks Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1023009ndash3022

HALLIDAY M A K (1970) IntonationLondon Oxford University Pressrsquot HART J COLLIER R amp COHEN A (1990) A perceptual study of intonation An experimental

phonetic approach Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressHOUSE J (1998) Review of Tench (1996) English Language and Linguistics 2 137ndash139

199C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

contour is higher but that the effect of the beginning of the rising contour in the accentedsyllable depends on whether relative to the preceding pitch it begins low in which casegreater surprise is signaled by lower pitch or high in which case the opposite is true

A number of conclusions can be drawn from these findings First it may not be usefulto consider perceived prominence to be an interesting attribute of a nuclear contour like LH-H or of the nuclear accent L It is of course common to think about pitch accents asdiscrete elements which are either present or absent and to believe that when presentthey have some level of prominence or strength This ldquoaccent strengthrdquo is we like to thinka function of the pitch level and pitch span specifications of the contour (Gussenhoven etal 1997) but it would now appear that information about these specifications cannot alwaysbe obtained by asking listeners to rate syllables (accents words or phrases) for perceivedprominence since these judgments are strongly influenced by the contextually determinedshape of the pitch contour in the accented syllable such that final and nonfinal accentedsyllables may receive very different reactions even if the pitch targets are identical

Figure 4

Perceived surprise as a function of H and H (top panels) and of L and H (bottom panels)for stimuli with final accents (panels (a) and (c)) and nonfinal accents (panels (b) and (d))separately

200 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Second one way in which speakers can convey surprise in Dutch is by increasing thepitch range as conceived by Liberman -Pierrehumbert lowering L and raising H-tones(A caveat is in order for speaker gender our results are based on the evaluation of malespeech) There are reports however that suggest that L- tones go up when the pitch rangeis increased Erickson Honda Hirai Beckman and Niimi (1994) show that increased levelsof vocal effort (soft voice normal voice loud voice) correlate with F0 of L in English theloud voice has the highest L- tones These findings are not contradictory however if thedistinction between pitch level and pitch span (Ladd 1996 p 260) is observed Restrictingourselves to within -speaker variation the strategy of overall raising of the pitch level whichwould only appear to be possible for the whole contour should perhaps be associated withhigher levels of arousal As was observed in the Discussion for Experiment 2 indignationis possibly expressed in this way as can be concluded on the basis of our finding thathigher targets for L lead to higher perceived indignation in two of the three types of stimuliAlso ldquospeaking uprdquo may employ this type of variation as suggested by the results ofErickson et al (1994) where the overall pitch raising may be seen as due to the effort toproduce a signal that carries over a greater distance By contrast expansion of the pitchspan is more appropriate for increases in what we might call intonational ldquoexplicitnessrdquoto be used when expressing emphasis or surprise and possibly in utterances that serve ascorrections of earlier utterances that were misunderstood or to listeners who are (believedto be) hard of hearing

The third conclusion is most immediately related to the purpose of our experimentsThe results of Experiment 3 provide strong support for the phonological analysis of risesby Pierrehumbert (1980) who described the equivalent American English contours as LH -H (low rise) and H H- H (high rise) respectively In combination with theassumption made in Liberman and Pierrehumbert (1984) that L is lowered but H-tonesraised when the pitch range is increased that analysis accurately explains the resultsobtained That is L H H and H H-H are categorically distinct contours of DutchThe alternative interpretation by which the contours corresponding to these transcriptionsform a single phonological class and represent different realizations varying merely ingradient pitch range must be excluded If our stimuli represented different realizations ofthe same phonological contour we would have expected the phonetic variation from highto low pitch in the accented syllable to have a uniform effect on the perception of the gradientattribute ldquosurpriserdquo

We must be careful to restrict our hypothesis that increased pitch span is achieved bylowering F0 to starred L- tones in Dutch Other L- tones may not behave in the same wayIndeed Fant and Kruckenberg (1994) found for Swedish that greater emphasis causes thelow F0 of Accent 2 to be lower but the low F0 for Accent 1 as well as all other targets tobe higher suggesting that not all L- tones are treated alike As observed by Ladd(forthcoming) the standard analysis (eg Bruce 1990) which analyzes Accent 1 as HLand Accent 2 as HL does not predict this result since one would sooner expect the L ofAccent 1 than the unstarred L- tone of Accent 2 to define the lower boundary of the pitchspan and thus be lowered with increased emphasis

Because the terms ldquohigh riserdquo and ldquolow riserdquo have been used in slightly differentmeanings we should be careful to prevent our results from being generalized to other distinc-tions In descriptions of British English ldquohigh risesrdquo are usually distinguished from ldquolow

201C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

risesrdquo on the basis of the end point For instance Halliday (1970) and OrsquoConnor and Arnold(1973) identify a rise from midlow to high (the ldquohigh riserdquo) as well as one from low tomidlow (the ldquolow riserdquo) Tench (1996) distinguishes low neutral and high rises on thebasis of the end point Crystal (1969) distinguishes three beginning points (high mediumlow) and three excursion sizes (wide normal narrow) to give nine categorically differentrises We believe that the rises described by these authors are versions of the L H-(H)contour with different pitch ranges Indeed the spoken illustrations accompanyingHalliday (1970) sound like such contours although the high rise is described as having amidlow beginning Cruttenden (1997 pp 51ndash 52) recognizes a (British) ldquolow riserdquo (ielow- range L L- H) as a category distinct from H H-H but suggests that wide-range L H-H and H H-H should be seen as a single category He also suggests thatH H-H is frequent in General American but has a low frequency of occurrence in BritishEnglish where the (British) ldquolow riserdquo tends to be used instead (see also 1997 pp 88 99)Cruttenden (1995) points out that utterance -final rises are on the increase in SouthernBritish speech among which there may well be ldquohigh risesrdquo (see also House 1998)

The description of Dutch intonation offered in rsquot Hart et al (1990) which makes nodistinction between the ldquohigh riserdquo and the ldquolow riserdquo could be modified so as to allow thecombination ldquo3rdquo (a late accent-lending rise) with ldquo2rdquo (equivalent to H) instead of justwith ldquoCrdquo (a nonaccent-lending fall) The combination ldquo32rdquo would then correspond to theldquolow riserdquo while ldquo12rdquo would represent only the ldquohigh riserdquo The description of Gussenhoven(1988 1991) which produces on a contour inventory based on phonological variations onthree basic pitch accents without ever producing a contour like the ldquohigh riserdquo should beaugmented with the contour H H which transcription adequately describes the two targetsof the ldquohigh riserdquo (see also Footnote 1)

Finally a more general conclusion In Experiment 3 we have seen how an investi-gation of the perceptual effects of pitch range led to a confirmation of a particular tonalanalysis of rising intonations This illustrates the importance of basing our data on as widea range of observations as possible The consideration of pitch range variation appears notonly to be relevant for studying models of phonetic implementation (cf Liberman ampPierrehumbert 1984) but also for models of phonological structure Indeed GrabeGussenhoven Haan Marsi and Post (1997) illustrates how studying the perception ofspeaker attitudes can lead to meaningful conclusions about intonational structure Theincreased interest for intonational meaning that seems to be detectable in experimentalresearch may therefore well lead to an improved understanding of morphology andphonology of intonation

Received January 18 1999 revised manuscript received September 22 1999 accepted December 6 1999

202 H and L in Dutch rising contours

REFERENCES

BARD E G ROBERTSON D amp SORACE A (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic accept-ability Language 72 32ndash68

BECKMAN M amp PIERREHUMBERT J B (1986) Intonational structure in English and JapanesePhonological Yearbook 3 255ndash310

BOERSMA P amp WEENINK D lthttpfonsg3letuvanlpraatgtBRUCE G (1990) Alignment and composition of tonal accents Comments on Silverman and

Pierrehumbertrsquos paper In J Kingston amp M Beckman (Eds) Papers in laboratory phonologyBetween the grammar and physics of speech (pp107ndash 114) Cambridge UK CambridgeUniversity Press

COLLIER R amp rsquot HART J (1980) Cursus Nederlandse IntonateLouvain AccoCOLLINS B amp MEES I (1981) The sounds of English The Hague Leiden University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1997) Intonation (2nd ed) Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1995) Rises in English In J Windsor Lewis (Ed) Studies in general and English

phonetics (pp155ndash173) London RoutledgeCRYSTAL D (1969) Prosodic systems and intonation in English Cambridge UK Cambridge

University PressERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H BECKMAN M E amp NIIMI S (1994) Global pitch range

and the production of low tones in English intonation International Conference on the Processingof Spoken Language 3 651ndash654

ERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H amp BECKMAN M E (1996) The production of low tonesin English intonation Journal of Phonetics 23 179ndash188

FANT G amp KRUCKENBERG A (1994) Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish SpeedTransmission Laboratorymdash Quarterly Status and Progress Report 2ndash 3 (pp125ndash 144) Alsopublished in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody 1994 Yokohama Japan

GRABE E GUSSENHOVEN C HAAN J MARSI E amp POST B (1997) Preaccentual pitch andspeaker attitude in Dutch Language and Speech 41 63ndash85

GUSSENHOVEN C (1988) Adequacy in intonation analysis The case of Dutch In H van der Hulstamp N Smith (Eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology (pp95ndash121) DordrechtForis

GUSSENHOVEN C (1991) Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch In T F Shannon amp J P Snapper(Eds) The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp139ndash 155) Lanham MDUniversity Press of America

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1988) Fundamental frequency declination in DutchTesting three hypotheses Journal of Phonetics 16 355ndash369

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1991) An experimental evaluation of two nuclear tonetaxonomies Linguistics 29 423ndash449

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1992) A target-interpolation model for the intonation of DutchICSLP2 (pp1235ndash1238)

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1997) Empirical evidence for the contrast between L andH in Dutch rising contours In A Botinis G Kouroupetroglou amp G Caryannis (Eds) Inton-ation Theory models and application Proceedings of ESCA workshop (pp169ndash172) AthensESCA and University of Athens

GUSSENHOVEN C REPP B H RIETVELD T RUMP H H amp TERKEN J (1997) The perceptualprominence of fundamental frequency peaks Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1023009ndash3022

HALLIDAY M A K (1970) IntonationLondon Oxford University Pressrsquot HART J COLLIER R amp COHEN A (1990) A perceptual study of intonation An experimental

phonetic approach Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressHOUSE J (1998) Review of Tench (1996) English Language and Linguistics 2 137ndash139

200 H and L in Dutch rising contours

Second one way in which speakers can convey surprise in Dutch is by increasing thepitch range as conceived by Liberman -Pierrehumbert lowering L and raising H-tones(A caveat is in order for speaker gender our results are based on the evaluation of malespeech) There are reports however that suggest that L- tones go up when the pitch rangeis increased Erickson Honda Hirai Beckman and Niimi (1994) show that increased levelsof vocal effort (soft voice normal voice loud voice) correlate with F0 of L in English theloud voice has the highest L- tones These findings are not contradictory however if thedistinction between pitch level and pitch span (Ladd 1996 p 260) is observed Restrictingourselves to within -speaker variation the strategy of overall raising of the pitch level whichwould only appear to be possible for the whole contour should perhaps be associated withhigher levels of arousal As was observed in the Discussion for Experiment 2 indignationis possibly expressed in this way as can be concluded on the basis of our finding thathigher targets for L lead to higher perceived indignation in two of the three types of stimuliAlso ldquospeaking uprdquo may employ this type of variation as suggested by the results ofErickson et al (1994) where the overall pitch raising may be seen as due to the effort toproduce a signal that carries over a greater distance By contrast expansion of the pitchspan is more appropriate for increases in what we might call intonational ldquoexplicitnessrdquoto be used when expressing emphasis or surprise and possibly in utterances that serve ascorrections of earlier utterances that were misunderstood or to listeners who are (believedto be) hard of hearing

The third conclusion is most immediately related to the purpose of our experimentsThe results of Experiment 3 provide strong support for the phonological analysis of risesby Pierrehumbert (1980) who described the equivalent American English contours as LH -H (low rise) and H H- H (high rise) respectively In combination with theassumption made in Liberman and Pierrehumbert (1984) that L is lowered but H-tonesraised when the pitch range is increased that analysis accurately explains the resultsobtained That is L H H and H H-H are categorically distinct contours of DutchThe alternative interpretation by which the contours corresponding to these transcriptionsform a single phonological class and represent different realizations varying merely ingradient pitch range must be excluded If our stimuli represented different realizations ofthe same phonological contour we would have expected the phonetic variation from highto low pitch in the accented syllable to have a uniform effect on the perception of the gradientattribute ldquosurpriserdquo

We must be careful to restrict our hypothesis that increased pitch span is achieved bylowering F0 to starred L- tones in Dutch Other L- tones may not behave in the same wayIndeed Fant and Kruckenberg (1994) found for Swedish that greater emphasis causes thelow F0 of Accent 2 to be lower but the low F0 for Accent 1 as well as all other targets tobe higher suggesting that not all L- tones are treated alike As observed by Ladd(forthcoming) the standard analysis (eg Bruce 1990) which analyzes Accent 1 as HLand Accent 2 as HL does not predict this result since one would sooner expect the L ofAccent 1 than the unstarred L- tone of Accent 2 to define the lower boundary of the pitchspan and thus be lowered with increased emphasis

Because the terms ldquohigh riserdquo and ldquolow riserdquo have been used in slightly differentmeanings we should be careful to prevent our results from being generalized to other distinc-tions In descriptions of British English ldquohigh risesrdquo are usually distinguished from ldquolow

201C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

risesrdquo on the basis of the end point For instance Halliday (1970) and OrsquoConnor and Arnold(1973) identify a rise from midlow to high (the ldquohigh riserdquo) as well as one from low tomidlow (the ldquolow riserdquo) Tench (1996) distinguishes low neutral and high rises on thebasis of the end point Crystal (1969) distinguishes three beginning points (high mediumlow) and three excursion sizes (wide normal narrow) to give nine categorically differentrises We believe that the rises described by these authors are versions of the L H-(H)contour with different pitch ranges Indeed the spoken illustrations accompanyingHalliday (1970) sound like such contours although the high rise is described as having amidlow beginning Cruttenden (1997 pp 51ndash 52) recognizes a (British) ldquolow riserdquo (ielow- range L L- H) as a category distinct from H H-H but suggests that wide-range L H-H and H H-H should be seen as a single category He also suggests thatH H-H is frequent in General American but has a low frequency of occurrence in BritishEnglish where the (British) ldquolow riserdquo tends to be used instead (see also 1997 pp 88 99)Cruttenden (1995) points out that utterance -final rises are on the increase in SouthernBritish speech among which there may well be ldquohigh risesrdquo (see also House 1998)

The description of Dutch intonation offered in rsquot Hart et al (1990) which makes nodistinction between the ldquohigh riserdquo and the ldquolow riserdquo could be modified so as to allow thecombination ldquo3rdquo (a late accent-lending rise) with ldquo2rdquo (equivalent to H) instead of justwith ldquoCrdquo (a nonaccent-lending fall) The combination ldquo32rdquo would then correspond to theldquolow riserdquo while ldquo12rdquo would represent only the ldquohigh riserdquo The description of Gussenhoven(1988 1991) which produces on a contour inventory based on phonological variations onthree basic pitch accents without ever producing a contour like the ldquohigh riserdquo should beaugmented with the contour H H which transcription adequately describes the two targetsof the ldquohigh riserdquo (see also Footnote 1)

Finally a more general conclusion In Experiment 3 we have seen how an investi-gation of the perceptual effects of pitch range led to a confirmation of a particular tonalanalysis of rising intonations This illustrates the importance of basing our data on as widea range of observations as possible The consideration of pitch range variation appears notonly to be relevant for studying models of phonetic implementation (cf Liberman ampPierrehumbert 1984) but also for models of phonological structure Indeed GrabeGussenhoven Haan Marsi and Post (1997) illustrates how studying the perception ofspeaker attitudes can lead to meaningful conclusions about intonational structure Theincreased interest for intonational meaning that seems to be detectable in experimentalresearch may therefore well lead to an improved understanding of morphology andphonology of intonation

Received January 18 1999 revised manuscript received September 22 1999 accepted December 6 1999

202 H and L in Dutch rising contours

REFERENCES

BARD E G ROBERTSON D amp SORACE A (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic accept-ability Language 72 32ndash68

BECKMAN M amp PIERREHUMBERT J B (1986) Intonational structure in English and JapanesePhonological Yearbook 3 255ndash310

BOERSMA P amp WEENINK D lthttpfonsg3letuvanlpraatgtBRUCE G (1990) Alignment and composition of tonal accents Comments on Silverman and

Pierrehumbertrsquos paper In J Kingston amp M Beckman (Eds) Papers in laboratory phonologyBetween the grammar and physics of speech (pp107ndash 114) Cambridge UK CambridgeUniversity Press

COLLIER R amp rsquot HART J (1980) Cursus Nederlandse IntonateLouvain AccoCOLLINS B amp MEES I (1981) The sounds of English The Hague Leiden University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1997) Intonation (2nd ed) Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1995) Rises in English In J Windsor Lewis (Ed) Studies in general and English

phonetics (pp155ndash173) London RoutledgeCRYSTAL D (1969) Prosodic systems and intonation in English Cambridge UK Cambridge

University PressERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H BECKMAN M E amp NIIMI S (1994) Global pitch range

and the production of low tones in English intonation International Conference on the Processingof Spoken Language 3 651ndash654

ERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H amp BECKMAN M E (1996) The production of low tonesin English intonation Journal of Phonetics 23 179ndash188

FANT G amp KRUCKENBERG A (1994) Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish SpeedTransmission Laboratorymdash Quarterly Status and Progress Report 2ndash 3 (pp125ndash 144) Alsopublished in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody 1994 Yokohama Japan

GRABE E GUSSENHOVEN C HAAN J MARSI E amp POST B (1997) Preaccentual pitch andspeaker attitude in Dutch Language and Speech 41 63ndash85

GUSSENHOVEN C (1988) Adequacy in intonation analysis The case of Dutch In H van der Hulstamp N Smith (Eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology (pp95ndash121) DordrechtForis

GUSSENHOVEN C (1991) Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch In T F Shannon amp J P Snapper(Eds) The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp139ndash 155) Lanham MDUniversity Press of America

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1988) Fundamental frequency declination in DutchTesting three hypotheses Journal of Phonetics 16 355ndash369

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1991) An experimental evaluation of two nuclear tonetaxonomies Linguistics 29 423ndash449

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1992) A target-interpolation model for the intonation of DutchICSLP2 (pp1235ndash1238)

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1997) Empirical evidence for the contrast between L andH in Dutch rising contours In A Botinis G Kouroupetroglou amp G Caryannis (Eds) Inton-ation Theory models and application Proceedings of ESCA workshop (pp169ndash172) AthensESCA and University of Athens

GUSSENHOVEN C REPP B H RIETVELD T RUMP H H amp TERKEN J (1997) The perceptualprominence of fundamental frequency peaks Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1023009ndash3022

HALLIDAY M A K (1970) IntonationLondon Oxford University Pressrsquot HART J COLLIER R amp COHEN A (1990) A perceptual study of intonation An experimental

phonetic approach Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressHOUSE J (1998) Review of Tench (1996) English Language and Linguistics 2 137ndash139

201C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

risesrdquo on the basis of the end point For instance Halliday (1970) and OrsquoConnor and Arnold(1973) identify a rise from midlow to high (the ldquohigh riserdquo) as well as one from low tomidlow (the ldquolow riserdquo) Tench (1996) distinguishes low neutral and high rises on thebasis of the end point Crystal (1969) distinguishes three beginning points (high mediumlow) and three excursion sizes (wide normal narrow) to give nine categorically differentrises We believe that the rises described by these authors are versions of the L H-(H)contour with different pitch ranges Indeed the spoken illustrations accompanyingHalliday (1970) sound like such contours although the high rise is described as having amidlow beginning Cruttenden (1997 pp 51ndash 52) recognizes a (British) ldquolow riserdquo (ielow- range L L- H) as a category distinct from H H-H but suggests that wide-range L H-H and H H-H should be seen as a single category He also suggests thatH H-H is frequent in General American but has a low frequency of occurrence in BritishEnglish where the (British) ldquolow riserdquo tends to be used instead (see also 1997 pp 88 99)Cruttenden (1995) points out that utterance -final rises are on the increase in SouthernBritish speech among which there may well be ldquohigh risesrdquo (see also House 1998)

The description of Dutch intonation offered in rsquot Hart et al (1990) which makes nodistinction between the ldquohigh riserdquo and the ldquolow riserdquo could be modified so as to allow thecombination ldquo3rdquo (a late accent-lending rise) with ldquo2rdquo (equivalent to H) instead of justwith ldquoCrdquo (a nonaccent-lending fall) The combination ldquo32rdquo would then correspond to theldquolow riserdquo while ldquo12rdquo would represent only the ldquohigh riserdquo The description of Gussenhoven(1988 1991) which produces on a contour inventory based on phonological variations onthree basic pitch accents without ever producing a contour like the ldquohigh riserdquo should beaugmented with the contour H H which transcription adequately describes the two targetsof the ldquohigh riserdquo (see also Footnote 1)

Finally a more general conclusion In Experiment 3 we have seen how an investi-gation of the perceptual effects of pitch range led to a confirmation of a particular tonalanalysis of rising intonations This illustrates the importance of basing our data on as widea range of observations as possible The consideration of pitch range variation appears notonly to be relevant for studying models of phonetic implementation (cf Liberman ampPierrehumbert 1984) but also for models of phonological structure Indeed GrabeGussenhoven Haan Marsi and Post (1997) illustrates how studying the perception ofspeaker attitudes can lead to meaningful conclusions about intonational structure Theincreased interest for intonational meaning that seems to be detectable in experimentalresearch may therefore well lead to an improved understanding of morphology andphonology of intonation

Received January 18 1999 revised manuscript received September 22 1999 accepted December 6 1999

202 H and L in Dutch rising contours

REFERENCES

BARD E G ROBERTSON D amp SORACE A (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic accept-ability Language 72 32ndash68

BECKMAN M amp PIERREHUMBERT J B (1986) Intonational structure in English and JapanesePhonological Yearbook 3 255ndash310

BOERSMA P amp WEENINK D lthttpfonsg3letuvanlpraatgtBRUCE G (1990) Alignment and composition of tonal accents Comments on Silverman and

Pierrehumbertrsquos paper In J Kingston amp M Beckman (Eds) Papers in laboratory phonologyBetween the grammar and physics of speech (pp107ndash 114) Cambridge UK CambridgeUniversity Press

COLLIER R amp rsquot HART J (1980) Cursus Nederlandse IntonateLouvain AccoCOLLINS B amp MEES I (1981) The sounds of English The Hague Leiden University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1997) Intonation (2nd ed) Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1995) Rises in English In J Windsor Lewis (Ed) Studies in general and English

phonetics (pp155ndash173) London RoutledgeCRYSTAL D (1969) Prosodic systems and intonation in English Cambridge UK Cambridge

University PressERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H BECKMAN M E amp NIIMI S (1994) Global pitch range

and the production of low tones in English intonation International Conference on the Processingof Spoken Language 3 651ndash654

ERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H amp BECKMAN M E (1996) The production of low tonesin English intonation Journal of Phonetics 23 179ndash188

FANT G amp KRUCKENBERG A (1994) Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish SpeedTransmission Laboratorymdash Quarterly Status and Progress Report 2ndash 3 (pp125ndash 144) Alsopublished in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody 1994 Yokohama Japan

GRABE E GUSSENHOVEN C HAAN J MARSI E amp POST B (1997) Preaccentual pitch andspeaker attitude in Dutch Language and Speech 41 63ndash85

GUSSENHOVEN C (1988) Adequacy in intonation analysis The case of Dutch In H van der Hulstamp N Smith (Eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology (pp95ndash121) DordrechtForis

GUSSENHOVEN C (1991) Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch In T F Shannon amp J P Snapper(Eds) The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp139ndash 155) Lanham MDUniversity Press of America

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1988) Fundamental frequency declination in DutchTesting three hypotheses Journal of Phonetics 16 355ndash369

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1991) An experimental evaluation of two nuclear tonetaxonomies Linguistics 29 423ndash449

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1992) A target-interpolation model for the intonation of DutchICSLP2 (pp1235ndash1238)

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1997) Empirical evidence for the contrast between L andH in Dutch rising contours In A Botinis G Kouroupetroglou amp G Caryannis (Eds) Inton-ation Theory models and application Proceedings of ESCA workshop (pp169ndash172) AthensESCA and University of Athens

GUSSENHOVEN C REPP B H RIETVELD T RUMP H H amp TERKEN J (1997) The perceptualprominence of fundamental frequency peaks Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1023009ndash3022

HALLIDAY M A K (1970) IntonationLondon Oxford University Pressrsquot HART J COLLIER R amp COHEN A (1990) A perceptual study of intonation An experimental

phonetic approach Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressHOUSE J (1998) Review of Tench (1996) English Language and Linguistics 2 137ndash139

202 H and L in Dutch rising contours

REFERENCES

BARD E G ROBERTSON D amp SORACE A (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic accept-ability Language 72 32ndash68

BECKMAN M amp PIERREHUMBERT J B (1986) Intonational structure in English and JapanesePhonological Yearbook 3 255ndash310

BOERSMA P amp WEENINK D lthttpfonsg3letuvanlpraatgtBRUCE G (1990) Alignment and composition of tonal accents Comments on Silverman and

Pierrehumbertrsquos paper In J Kingston amp M Beckman (Eds) Papers in laboratory phonologyBetween the grammar and physics of speech (pp107ndash 114) Cambridge UK CambridgeUniversity Press

COLLIER R amp rsquot HART J (1980) Cursus Nederlandse IntonateLouvain AccoCOLLINS B amp MEES I (1981) The sounds of English The Hague Leiden University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1997) Intonation (2nd ed) Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressCRUTTENDEN A (1995) Rises in English In J Windsor Lewis (Ed) Studies in general and English

phonetics (pp155ndash173) London RoutledgeCRYSTAL D (1969) Prosodic systems and intonation in English Cambridge UK Cambridge

University PressERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H BECKMAN M E amp NIIMI S (1994) Global pitch range

and the production of low tones in English intonation International Conference on the Processingof Spoken Language 3 651ndash654

ERICKSON D HONDA K HIRAI H amp BECKMAN M E (1996) The production of low tonesin English intonation Journal of Phonetics 23 179ndash188

FANT G amp KRUCKENBERG A (1994) Notes on stress and word accent in Swedish SpeedTransmission Laboratorymdash Quarterly Status and Progress Report 2ndash 3 (pp125ndash 144) Alsopublished in the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Prosody 1994 Yokohama Japan

GRABE E GUSSENHOVEN C HAAN J MARSI E amp POST B (1997) Preaccentual pitch andspeaker attitude in Dutch Language and Speech 41 63ndash85

GUSSENHOVEN C (1988) Adequacy in intonation analysis The case of Dutch In H van der Hulstamp N Smith (Eds) Advances in nonlinear phonology (pp95ndash121) DordrechtForis

GUSSENHOVEN C (1991) Tone segments in the intonation of Dutch In T F Shannon amp J P Snapper(Eds) The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp139ndash 155) Lanham MDUniversity Press of America

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1988) Fundamental frequency declination in DutchTesting three hypotheses Journal of Phonetics 16 355ndash369

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD A C M (1991) An experimental evaluation of two nuclear tonetaxonomies Linguistics 29 423ndash449

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1992) A target-interpolation model for the intonation of DutchICSLP2 (pp1235ndash1238)

GUSSENHOVEN C amp RIETVELD T (1997) Empirical evidence for the contrast between L andH in Dutch rising contours In A Botinis G Kouroupetroglou amp G Caryannis (Eds) Inton-ation Theory models and application Proceedings of ESCA workshop (pp169ndash172) AthensESCA and University of Athens

GUSSENHOVEN C REPP B H RIETVELD T RUMP H H amp TERKEN J (1997) The perceptualprominence of fundamental frequency peaks Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1023009ndash3022

HALLIDAY M A K (1970) IntonationLondon Oxford University Pressrsquot HART J COLLIER R amp COHEN A (1990) A perceptual study of intonation An experimental

phonetic approach Cambridge UK Cambridge University PressHOUSE J (1998) Review of Tench (1996) English Language and Linguistics 2 137ndash139

203C Gussenhoven and T Rietveld

LADD D R (1987) A phonological model of intonation for use in speech synthesis by rule In J Laveramp M Jack (Eds) Proceedings of the European Conference on Speech Technology Vol 2 (pp21ndash24) Edinburgh CEP Associates

LADD D R (1990) Metrical representation of pitch register In J Kingston amp M Beckman (Eds)Papers in laboratory phonology (pp35ndash57) Cambridge UK Cambridge University Press

LADD D R (1996) Intonational Phonology Cambridge Cambridge University PressLADD D R (forthcoming) Tones and turning points Bruce Pierrehumbert and the elements of intona-

tional phonology In M Horne (Ed) Intonation Theory and experimentAmsterdam BenjaminsLADD D R amp MORTON R (1997) The perception of intonational emphasis Continuous or

categorical Journal of Phonetics 25 313mdash342LIBERMAN M amp PIERREHUMBERT J (1984) Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range

and length In M Aronoff amp R T Oehrle (Eds) Language sound structure Studies in phonologypresented to Morris Halle by his teacher and students (pp157ndash233) Cambridge MA MIT

LODGE M (1981) Magnitude scaling London Sage PublicationsMOZZICONACCI S (1998) Speech variability and emotion Production and perceptionUnpublished

doctoral dissertation Technical University of EindhovenOrsquoCONNOR J D amp ARNOLD J F (1973) Intonation of colloquial English London LongmanPATTERSON D amp LADD D R (1999) Pitch range modeling Linguistic dimensions of variation

Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences Vol 2 (pp1169ndash1172)Berkeley University of California

PIERREHUMBERT J B (1979) The perception of fundamental frequency declination Journal of theAcoustical Society of America 66 363ndash369

PIERREHUMBERT J B (1980) The phonetics and phonology of English intonationDoctoral disser-tation MIT Published by Garland Press New York 1990

RIETVELD T amp Van HOUT R (1993) Statistical techniques for the study of language and languagebehaviour Berlin Mouton de Gruyter

TENCH P (1996) The intonation systems of English London Cassell