Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bp2c4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-17T04:14:56.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Prosodic properties of formality in conversational Japanese

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2018

Ethan Sherr-Ziarko*
Affiliation:
University of Oxfordethan.sherr-ziarko@stx.ox.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines potential prosodic cues for level of formality in Japanese conversational speech using speech data gathered via one-on-one interviews. Based on previous work on the phonetic properties of formality in Japanese (Ofuka et al. 2000, Ito 2002), further studies of Korean (Winter & Grawunder 2012) and Catalan Spanish (Hübscher, Borràs-Comes & Prieto 2017), and on a lab-based pilot study, the study examined properties of f0, intensity, pause frequency, and articulation rate via mixed effects regression models and a functional data analysis (Grabe, Kochanski & Coleman 2007, Ramsay 2006). Analysis of the speech data shows significant relationships between a number of prosodic variables and level of formality, and suggests that some of these relationships may apply cross-linguistically.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© International Phonetic Association 2018 
Figure 0

Table 1 Criteria used in determining utterance formality.

Figure 1

Figure 1 An f0 vector showing a pitch-doubling error. The x-axis shows points at 10 ms intervals, while the y-axis shows f0 values at each point in Hz.

Figure 2

Figure 2 f0 vectors with a pitch-doubling error (on the left) and after automatic correction (on the right).

Figure 3

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of all the variables examined in this study. f0 range is measured in equal tempered semitones (cents (c)), articulation rate in moras per second (m/s) and pause frequency measures the number of pauses per utterance.

Figure 4

Table 3 Summary of modeling results for the variables in this chapter. Estimate is an estimate of the overall slope of the change in the linear model based on the fixed factor, with the variance caused by the random effects taken into account. Values for interaction terms are not reported as none were significant according to model comparison.

Figure 5

Figure 3 Density plot of articulation rate in informal and formal speech.

Figure 6

Figure 4 Density plot of mean f0 for male and female speakers.

Figure 7

Figure 5 An example of a fitted function (indicated by the dashed line) with a d of 0.1.

Figure 8

Figure 6 A fitted function with a d of ~0.02. The smooth (brown) line indicates the fitted function, while the jagged (blue) line represents the normalized f0 vector.

Figure 9

Figure 7 Average peak shape of the fitted functions for informal and formal speech. This is equivalent to the average shape of one accentual phrase in Japanese.

Figure 10

Table 4 List of mean orthogonalized function coefficients.

Figure 11

Table 5 Results of model comparison for the generalized linear mixed effects model in (6).