Identification and social evaluation of dialectal Greek intonation

Identification and social evaluation of dialectal Greek intonation

Identification and social evaluation of dialectal Greek intonation

S. Gryllia A. Arvaniti M. Baltazani E. Adamou Univ. of Potsdam UC San Diego Univ. of Ioannina CNRS-Lacito

M. Terkourafi N. Vergis S. Tsiplakou UIUC UIUC Open Univ. of Cyprus1FundingWorldwide Universities Network (WUN) research program, funded by the University of Illinois (2009-2010)Lost in intonation: The interaction of intonation and meaning in the speech of L1, L2 and heritage speakers of Greek and its implications for cross-cultural communication and education

Coordinator: Marina Terkourafi, UIUC2Intonation and varieties of GreekWe use the term intonation to refer to the use of pitch to convey pragmatic meaning in a linguistically structured way (cf. Ladd 2008). Varieties of Greek we examineCorfiot GreekCretan Greek (Heraclion) Cypriot Greek Heritage Greek from the USA Heritage Greek from Germany L3 Greek spoken by Roma trilinguals in ThraceThese varieties are compared to Standard Greek (SG)3

Research questionsIt is unclear what role intonational variation plays in interactions between speakers of different varieties of the same languagewhether intonation is instrumental in identifying the variety spokenwhether intonation affects listener attitudes towards a given variety

4ExperimentsWe address these issues by examining listener reactions to the six varieties of Greek mentioned earlier(Corfiot, Cretan, Cypriot, Heritage Germany, Heritage US, Roma)We investigated whether Athenian listeners (speakers of Standard Greek) can use intonational cues to identify these varieties (identification experiment)whether the differences affect listener attitudes towards the talkers (rating experiment)5ExamplesCretanGermany heritage GreekCypriotCorfu GreekSG Roma US heritage Greek

6Identification experimentStimuli 8 polar questions8 wh-questions Few dialectal features other than intonation (as our production results show; Tsiplakou et al. 2011)8 polar & 8 wh-questions from Standard Greek as control Total: 2 question types 7 varieties 8 exemplars = 112 stimuli Participants24 students from the University of Athens (age range: 19-23)

7from each of the six varietiesProcedureThe participants listened to every stimulus twice and answered a forced-choice question about the dialect of the talker They were given eight choices: the six varieties under investigationStandard Greek (SG)Northern Greek (as control)

8ResultsBetter than chance (12.5%) identification some varieties, like Athenian and Cypriot Greek, were identified more successfully than otherssome were not: Heritage Greek from Germany: 3.1%Identification rates were not consistent across question types and varieties e.g. Cypriot polar questions were more easily identified than Cypriot wh-questionsNon-random misidentifications Heritage Greek from Germany misidentified as Standard GreekCretan misidentified as Ionian Greek , Athenian or Northern Greek

9

Polar questions10SG

11Wh-questionsRating experimentStimuliSame 112 stimuli as in the identification experimentProcedureParticipants listened to each stimulus once and evaluated the talker using a 5-point scale FriendlyConservativeEducatedSincere CurtParticipants11 students from the U. of Athens (age range: 19-23)12ResultsThe listeners rated the SG talkers more positively than dialectal talkers for all features except conservatismSG talkers received high ratings for positive features (friendly, educated, sincere) and low ratings for negative features (conservative, curt)Corfiot talkers were the most negatively evaluated, followed by the Roma who were rated least educated

13

Red squares: varieties that received significantly higher scores than others Blue squares: varieties that received significantly lower scores than others14Discussion: generalIntonational differences can be used to identify the variety spokenThis applies even when there are minimal segmental cues to the origin of the talkersThese differences serve not only to identify the talker; they also affect the evaluation of the talkers themselves15The results also show non-random mis-identifications, indicating perceptual maps of Greek dialectology that participants may havee.g. identifying island speakers as a generic group (cf. results for Corfu and Crete)

16Discussion: non-random misidentificationsDiscussion: heritage speakersIntonation was sufficient for better than chance identification in all cases except Heritage Greek from GermanyThe low identification rates and misidentification with SG is supported by our production data: differences between the intonation of these and SG speakers were minimal (Tsiplakou et al. 2011)The lack of accent of the heritage speakers from Germany may be due to their close links to Greece, where they visit regularlyGermany heritage speakers contrast with US heritage speakers who were most often taken for heritage speakers from Germany or for Cypriot speakers (i.e. they were perceived as other)This could be due to their less extensive contact with Greece and markedly different melodies

17Not all melodies are equal: for some groups, polar questions led to better identification rates than wh-questionsThis result is likely due to a greater degree of difference between SG melodies and dialectal ones for polar questions in some varieties and wh-questions in othersThis result corroborates our claim that identification was indeed based on the melody and not on any segmental differences among varietiesCypriot polar questions, in which the final rise-fall is aligned differently with the text than in SG, were clearly more easily identified as Cypriot than wh-questions, which show few if any differences from SGUS heritage Greek speakers seemed to have better acquired the SG polar question melody (which is quite distinct) but not the wh-question melody (which is closer to their English patterns)

18Discussion: the role of melodyConclusionIntonation plays a crucial role in variety identification and affects the evaluation of the talkers themselves, not just of their way of speakingUnderstanding the role of intonation in sociolinguistic variation is therefore of importanceFurther research is necessary with improvements on the present design:More comparable but still ecologically valid stimuli across varietiesElimination of segmental differences (to confirm results) by using synthesized dialectal melodies with SG segmentalsand dialectal segmental with SG melodies19ReferencesAdamou, E. (2010). Bilingual speech and language ecology in Greek Thrace: Romani and Pomak in contact with Turkish. Language in Society 39: 147-171.Ladd, D. R. (2008) Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressTsiplakou, S., A. Arvaniti, M. Baltazani, E. Adamou, S. Gryllia, M. Terkourafi, C. Themistocleous, N. Vergis, S. Armosti (2011). Intonational variation in polar and wh- questions across seven varieties of Greek. 6th ICLAVE, Freiburg, Germany.

20 Thank you for your attention21 Stella Gryllia Amalia ArvanitiMary Baltazani Evangelia Adamou22Marina Terkourafi

THE RESEARCH TEAM

Nikos VergisStavroula Tsiplakou

23Stella Gryllia, Univ. of Potsdam [email protected] Arvaniti, UC San Diego [email protected] Mary Baltazani, Univ. of Ioannina [email protected] Adamou, CNRS-Lacito [email protected] Terkourafi, UIUC [email protected] Vergis, UIUC [email protected] Tsiplakou, Open Univ. of Cyprus [email protected] TEAM ADDRESSES

Sheet1CR_Wh_1_1

CR_Wh_1_2

CR_Wh_1_3

CR_Wh_1_4

CR_Wh_2_1

CR_Wh_2_2

CR_Wh_2_3

CR_Wh_2_4

CY_Wh_1_1

CY_Wh_1_2

CY_Wh_1_3

CY_Wh_1_5

CY_Wh_1_6

CY_Wh_1_7

CY_Wh_1_8

CY_Wh_2_4

Ger_Wh_1_1wrong nucleus pitch accentlack of low plateau!H%

Ger_Wh_1_2problem with nucleus pitch accent!H%

Ger_Wh_1_3two phrases!H%

Ger_Wh_1_4starts dropping after elow plateau!H%

Ger_Wh_1_5!H%

Ger_Wh_1_6different shape

Ger_Wh_1_7L*+Hlow plateau!H%


Ker_Wh_1_1

Ker_Wh_2_1

Ker_Wh_2_2

Ker_Wh_2_3

Ker_Wh_2_4

Ker_Wh_2_5

Ker_Wh_2_6

Ker_Wh_3_1

KN_Wh_1_1L*+Hlow plateau!H%

KN_Wh_1_2L*+Hstarts dropping at e of erhetai!H%

KN_Wh_1_3L*+Hlow plateauL%




KN_Wh_2_7L*+Hstarts dropping after ka!H%


Rm_Wh_1_1

Rm_Wh_1_2

Rm_Wh_2_3

Rm_Wh_2_4

Rm_Wh_3_5

Rm_Wh_3_6

Rm_Wh_3_7

Rm_Wh_3_8

US_Wh_2_1

US_Wh_2_2

US_Wh_2_3

US_Wh_4_1

US_Wh_5_1

US_Wh_6_2

US_Wh_7_1

US_Wh_8_1

Sheet2Figure 1: Polar questionsResponseAthensIonian islands*CreteCyprusNorthern GreeceRomaH. Greek USAH. Greek GermanyVarietyA62.5%14.1%6.8%1.0%7.8%1.6%1.6%4.7%Corfiot12.5%37.0%13.0%6.8%18.8%6.3%2.6%3.1%Cretan14.1%21.9%15.6%4.2%25.0%3.6%12.0%3.6%Cypriot5.2%4.7%69.8%.5%3.6%11.5%4.7%Greek Roma8.9%10.9%8.3%6.3%14.6%24.5%12.0%14.6%Heritage Greek USA.5%5.7%10.9%19.3%4.7%14.6%14.1%30.2%Heritage Greek Germany49.5%15.1%6.3%5.2%17.7%.5%2.6%3.1%Total21.1%15.7%9.4%16.1%12.7%7.8%8.0%9.2%

Wh- questionsResponseAthensIonian islandsCreteCyprusNorthern GreeceRomaGreek from USAGreek from GermanyVarietySG79.7%6.3%3.6%.5%5.2%1.0%1.6%2.1%Corfiot9.9%37.5%7.3%6.8%19.8%15.1%2.1%1.6%Cretan27.1%21.9%20.3%1.0%18.2%4.2%2.6%4.7%Cypriot1.6%10.4%8.3%38.5%3.1%5.2%14.1%18.8%Greek Roma12.0%12.5%10.4%3.6%12.0%23.4%10.9%15.1%heritage Greek USA3.1%6.8%3.1%11.5%3.6%14.6%27.6%29.7%heritage Greek Germany49.5%8.3%5.2%11.5%16.1%2.1%3.1%4.2%Total26.1%14.8%8.3%10.5%11.2%9.4%8.9%10.9%

Sheet3

Sheet1CR_Wh_1_1

CR_Wh_1_2

CR_Wh_1_3

CR_Wh_1_4

CR_Wh_2_1

CR_Wh_2_2

CR_Wh_2_3

CR_Wh_2_4

CY_Wh_1_1

CY_Wh_1_2

CY_Wh_1_3

CY_Wh_1_5

CY_Wh_1_6

CY_Wh_1_7

CY_Wh_1_8

CY_Wh_2_4

Ger_Wh_1_1wrong nucleus pitch accentlack of low plateau!H%

Ger_Wh_1_2problem with nucleus pitch accent!H%

Ger_Wh_1_3two phrases!H%

Ger_Wh_1_4starts dropping after elow plateau!H%

Ger_Wh_1_5!H%

Ger_Wh_1_6different shape



Ker_Wh_1_1

Ker_Wh_2_1

Ker_Wh_2_2

Ker_Wh_2_3

Ker_Wh_2_4

Ker_Wh_2_5

Ker_Wh_2_6

Ker_Wh_3_1


KN_Wh_1_2L*+Hstarts dropping at e of erhetai!H%





KN_Wh_2_7L*+Hstarts dropping after ka!H%


Rm_Wh_1_1

Rm_Wh_1_2

Rm_Wh_2_3

Rm_Wh_2_4

Rm_Wh_3_5

Rm_Wh_3_6

Rm_Wh_3_7

Rm_Wh_3_8

US_Wh_2_1

US_Wh_2_2

US_Wh_2_3

US_Wh_4_1

US_Wh_5_1

US_Wh_6_2

US_Wh_7_1

US_Wh_8_1

Sheet2Polar questionsResponseAthensIonian islandsCreteCyprusNorthern GreeceRomaGreek from USAGreek from GermanyVarietySG62.5%14.1%6.8%1.0%7.8%1.6%1.6%4.7%Corfiot12.5%37.0%13.0%6.8%18.8%6.3%2.6%3.1%Cretan14.1%21.9%15.6%4.2%25.0%3.6%12.0%3.6%Cypriot5.2%4.7%69.8%.5%3.6%11.5%4.7%Greek Roma8.9%10.9%8.3%6.3%14.6%24.5%12.0%14.6%heritage Greek USA.5%5.7%10.9%19.3%4.7%14.6%14.1%30.2%heritage Greek Germany49.5%15.1%6.3%5.2%17.7%.5%2.6%3.1%Total21.1%15.7%9.4%16.1%12.7%7.8%8.0%9.2%

Figure 2: Wh- questionsResponseAthensIonian islandsCreteCyprusNorthern GreeceRomaH. Greek USAH. Greek GermanyVarietySG79.7%6.3%3.6%.5%5.2%1.0%1.6%2.1%Corfiot9.9%37.5%7.3%6.8%19.8%15.1%2.1%1.6%Cretan27.1%21.9%20.3%1.0%18.2%4.2%2.6%4.7%Cypriot1.6%10.4%8.3%38.5%3.1%5.2%14.1%18.8%Greek Roma12.0%12.5%10.4%3.6%12.0%23.4%10.9%15.1%Heritage Greek USA3.1%6.8%3.1%11.5%3.6%14.6%27.6%29.7%Heritage Greek Germany49.5%8.3%5.2%11.5%16.1%2.1%3.1%4.2%Total26.1%14.8%8.3%10.5%11.2%9.4%8.9%10.9%

Sheet3

Identification and social evaluation of dialectal Greek intonation

Documents

Transcript of Identification and social evaluation of dialectal Greek intonation