The meaning of „nasal grunts” in the NECTE corpus. A preliminary perceptual investigation

• Authors: Aurélie Chlébowski
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper reports a perceptual evaluation of the meanings conveyed by the acoustic components of “nasal grunts” (Chlebowski and Ballier 2015), i.e., non-lexical conversational sounds realised with a nasal feature (e.g. , , ). This study follows the experimental investigation conducted by Chlebowski and Ballier (2015) on the acoustic components of such sounds in the PVC project (Milroy et al. 1997), which is part of the NECTE corpus (Allen et al. 2007). In accordance with current claims in the literature, they ascribed meanings to these acoustic features, e.g. fall-rises express that the “speaker implies something” (Wells 2006: 27), and verified their validity through an analysis of the context surrounding the “nasal grunts”. Nonetheless, to avoid problems of circularity and ad hoc categories, the present study includes a perceptual evaluation by four participants. To verify the meanings ascribed to the features of “nasal grunts”, three native speakers of American English were recorded in short casual conversations and three perception tests were created using these recordings, with Praat software (Boersma and Weenink 2009). The first two tests aim to check whether different acoustic features: 1) are perceived as different when presented in pairs; 2) can be identified by the participants (as falls or rises) in isolation. The last test aim to determine whether each feature bears the same meaning: 1) in isolation, 2) in a given context, or 3) in scripted conversations likely to trigger the meanings ascribed by Chlebowski and Ballier (2015). Results suggest that acoustic components of “nasal grunts” in Geordie English do convey specific attitudinal meanings, and raise the possibility of a perceptual hierarchy of those components.

Keywords

EN

”nasal grunts”; meaning; perception; features; Geordie

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Research in Language
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 14
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 43-59

Dates

published

2016-03-30

Contributors

author

Aurélie Chlébowski

• Université Paris

References

• Allen, W., Beal, J., Corrigan, K., Maguire, W., and H. Moisl. 2007. A linguistic “time-capsule”: the Newcastle Electronic Corpus of Tyneside English. Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora. New York/Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2. Available from: http://research.ncl.ac.uk/necte/index.htm [Accessed on: 28 April 2016]
• Blau, E. K. 1991. More on Comprehensible Input: The Effect of Pauses and Hesitation Markers on Listening Comprehension. US Department of Education, University of Puerto Rico, Report-Research.
• Boersma, P. and D. Weenink. 2009. Praat. [Online]. Available from: http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/ [Accessed on: 28 April 2016]
• Boersma, P. and D. Weenink. 2016. Multiple Forced Choice listening experiment 6. Responses are sounds. Praat documentation, University of Amsterdam. Available from: http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/manual/ExperimentMFC_6__Responses_are_sounds.html [Accessed on: 28 April 2016]
• Brazil, D., Coulthard, M., Johns, C., and C. Johns, C. 1980. Discourse intonation and language teaching. London: Longman.
• Cenoz, J. 1998. Pauses and Communication Strategies in Second Language Speech. US Department of Education, University of the Basque country, Report-Research.
• Chlébowski, A. 2015. “Nasal grunts” in the NECTE corpus, an experimental investigation. Unpublished MA thesis. Universite Paris VII, Denis Diderot, France.
• Chlébowski, A. and N. Ballier. 2015. “Nasal grunts” in the NECTE corpus – Meaningful interactional sounds. EPIP Proceedings: 54-58.
• Corley, M. and O. W. Stewart. 2008. Hesitation disfluencies in spontaneous speech: The meaning of um. Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (4), 589-602.
• Cruttenden, A. 1981. Falls and rises: meanings and universals. Journal of Linguistics 17, 77–91.
• Crystal, D. 1975. The English Tone of Voice. London: Edward Ad Arnold.
• Milroy, J., Milroy, L. and G. Docherty. 1997. Phonological variation and change in contemporary spoken British English. Economic and Social Research Council. Available from: http://research.ncl.ac.uk/necte/index.htm [Accessed on: 28 April 2016]
• Schroder, M., Heylen, D. K. J. and I. Poggi. 2006. Perception of non-verbal emotional listener feedback. In R. Hoffmann and H. Mixdorff (eds.), Speech Prosody, 1-4. TUDpress Verlag der Wissenschaften Dresden.
• Snow, D. and H. L. Balog. 2002. Do children produce the melody before the words? A review of developmental intonation research. Lingua 122 (12), 1025-1058.
• Swerts, M. and R. Geluykens. 1994. Prosody as a marker of information flow in spoken discourse. Language and speech 37(1), 21-43.
• Tateishi, M. 2013. Effects of the Use of Ultrasound in Production Training on the Perception of English/r/and/l/by Native Japanese Speakers. Doctoral dissertation. University of Calgary.
• Team, A. 2012. Audacity. Audio editor and recorder. Available from: http://www.audacityteam.org/ [Accessed on: 28 April 2016].
• Tench, P. 1996. The intonation systems of English. London: Cassel.
• Ward, N. G. 2000. Issues in the transcription of English conversational grunts. First (ACL) SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, 29-35.
• Ward, N. G. 2006. Non-lexical conversational sounds in American English. Pragmatics and Cognition 14 (1), 129-182. Available from: http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cs_techrep/307 [Accessed on: 28 April 2016].
• Wells, J.C. 2006. English Intonation: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/rela-2016-0001