University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A study of the intonation patterns of black and Standard English speaking children in formal and informal situations

(USC Thesis Other)

A study of the intonation patterns of black and Standard English speaking children in formal and informal situations

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. I.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 SI I IE I 74-17,387 j WINKLER, Henry John, 1942- A STUDY OF THE INTONATION PATTERNS OF BLACK j AND STANDARD ENGLISH SPEAKING CHILDREN IN FORMAL AND INFORMAL SITUATIONS. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1974 Speech University Microfilms, A XEROX Company , An n Arbor, Michigan \ 3 © 1974 HENRY JOHN WINKLER ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. A STUDY OF THE INTONATION PATTERNS OF BLACK AND STANDARD ENGLISH SPEAKING CHILDREN IN FORMAL AND INFORMAL SITUATIONS by Henry John Winkler A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Communication) December 1973 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9O007 This dissertation, written by Henry., John..Winkler under the direction of hi,s-— Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Gradu ate School, in partial fulfillment of require ments of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GL^&JMTTI 2. Dean Date. \qn+\ DISSERTATION COMMITTEE OJcLbt^ A #*iu. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In thanking people, I find it difficult to find the proper words. I consider each contribution to be important no matter how small 1t may have seemed originally. The total product was the sum of many. Although Dr. Dickens was not a member of my dissertation committee, I must thank him for my being in the program. To my dissertation committee I say thanks. Specifically, I thank: Dr. Frentz, the chairman, for providing both the original thoughts and overall guidance, Dr. Purcell for providing technical expertise and methodological guidance, Dr. Fisher for providing stylistic guidance, and Dr. Knirk for his understanding. To Ray Poole, who gave his time for interviewing, I wish success in future studies and again say thanks. To Dr. Barry R1tea, Bill Brackenrldge and the System Development Corporation, without whose assistance this study may never have been completed, I express my sincere gratitude. To the principals and staff of the studied schools, who were very generous with both their time and facilities, thank you. To Florence Buelow, I must give a special and personal thanks for her understanding and assistance. To my wife, Lynnea, I offer a special thanks. I must admit that her assistance in the study design, data analysis, and writing was crucial to completing this dessertation. She served as an Inter active terminal operator, typist, editor, technican and friend. 11 To the System Development Corporation, Santa Monica, California 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 11 DEDICATION 111 LIST OF TABLES v1 LIST OF FIGURES V111 Chapter I. THE PROBLEM 1 Introduction 1 Social Variables 7 Stylistic Variable 8 Segmentals versus Suprasegmentals 10 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 12 Synopsis 18 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM 18 USAGE OF TERMS 22 II. METHOD 24 Geographic Study Areas 25 Subjects 26 Testing Environment ........ 27 Interviewers 29 Situation Variables 30 Material 32 Procedures . 33 Tape Preparation 35 1v Chapter Page Computer Speech Reduction 36 Procedures for Analysis 36 Summary 40 III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 41 Descriptive Question 46 Comparative Questions 53 SECONDARY FINDINGS 120 IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 126 Conclusions 128 Theoretic Implications 129 Practical Implications 131 Suggestions for Future Research 132 APPENDICES 134 A. Script 135 B. Sample Tabular Printout 140 C. Compared Printouts and Sonagrams 146 D. Data Point Totals and Means 155 E. Master Tables of Correlation Coefficient 159 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 163 V LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Some Differences Between Standard and Black English . . 6 2. Comparison of Black and Standard English Intonation Terminal Contours .... 17 3. Intonation Patterns for Mean Utterances 47 4. Initial Intonation Contour for Mean Utterances .... 49 5. Terminal Intonation Contour for Mean Utterances .... 51 6. Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Two . 58 7. Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Three 67 8. Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Four 75 9. Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Five 80 10. Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Six . 88 11. Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Seven 96 12. Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Eight 103 13. Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Nine 112 14. Trend of Correlation Coefficients for the Specific Question Mean Utterance 114 15. Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Ten .116 16. Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Eleven 119 17. Average Hz for Each Mean Utterance 122 18. Average Hz for Each Situation and Dialect 122 vi i Table Page I p 19. Average Hz for Each Dialect 123 I 20. Fundamental Frequency Range for Each Mean Utterance . . 124 v11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Analysis Scheme for Utterances 38 2. Intonation Patterns for BLDF versus BLDI 56 3. Intonation Patterns for BLSF versus BLSI 56 4. Intonation Patterns for BLGF versus BLGI 57 5. Intonation Patterns for BLDF versus BLSF 61 6. Intonation Patterns for BLDF versus BLGF 63 7. Intonation Patterns for BLSF versus BLGF 63 8. Intonation Patterns for BLDI versus BLSI 65 9. Intonation Patterns for BLDI versus BLGI 65 10. Intonation Patterns for BLSI versus BLGI 66 11. Intonation Patterns for BLDF versus BLSI 69 12. Intonation Patterns for BLDI versus BLSF 71 13. Intonation Patterns for BLDF versus BLGI 71 14. Intonation Patterns for BLDI versus BLGF 73 15. Intonation Patterns for BLSF versus BLGI 73 16. Intonation Patterns for BLSI versus BLGF 74 17. Intonation Patterns for STDF versus STDI 77 18. Intonation Patterns for STSF versus STSI 79 19. Intonation Patterns for STGF versus STGI 79 20. Intonation Patterns for STDF versus STSF 82 21. Intonation Patterns for STDF versus STGF 84 22. Intonation Patterns for STSF versus STGF 84 23. Intonation Patterns for STDI versus STSI 85 v111 Figure 24. 1 25. ] 26. ] 27. ] 28. 1 29. ] 30. ] 31. ] 32. ] 33. ] 34. ] 35. ] 36. 1 37. ] 38. ] 39. } 40. ] 41. 1 42. ] 43. ] 44. ] 45. 1 46. 1 47. ] [ntonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns Intonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns Intonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns Intonation Patterns [ntonation Patterns for STDI for STSI for STDF for STDI for STDF for STDI for STSF for STSI for BLDF for BLDI for BLSF for BLSI for BLGF for BLGI for BLDF for BLDI for BLSF for BLSI for BLGF for BLGI for BLSI for BLDI for BLSI for BLGF versus versus versus versus versus versus versus versus versus versus versus versus versus versus versus versus versus versus versus versus versus versus versus versus Page STGI 87 STGI 87 STSI 90 STSF 92 STGI 92 STGF 94 STGI 94 STGF 95 STDF 98 STDI 100 STSF 100 STSI 102 STGF 102 STGI 104 STDI 107 STDF 109 STSI 109 STSF Ill STGI Ill STGF 113 STDI 118 STGI 118 STDF 121 STSI 121 1x CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Dialects differ in intonation. Perhaps what makes an unfamiliar dialect most difficult to understand is its unexpected pitch, stress and rhythm. Teachers often complain when they first begin to work with divergent speakers that they can't understand a word .... Since Intonation is essential in understanding oral language, it is logical to assume that It must be supplied mentally by readers as they read 1n order for comprehension to take place. How much compre hension 1s interfered with if the teacher Insists on intonation patterns 1n oral reading which are unnatural to the divergent reader can only be conjectured at this tlmej A necessary ingredient for effective Interpersonal communi cation 1s a common understanding of the linguistic code between speaker and receiver. A reduction in the knowledge of this code will result in a corresponding reduction in the effectiveness of the communicative transaction. The more serious problem, however, lies not with a reduction in communication but an Increase in the probability of miscommunication. The difference between the 1nner-c1ty educator's linguistic code, usually Standard English, and that of his students, usually Black English, often places him in a situation which has a high probability of miscommunication. This difference may also produce a breakdown in both social and educational communication. The K. Goodman, "Dialects: Barriers to Reading Comprehension," Dimensions of Dialects, ed. Eldonna Evertts (Champaign, 111.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1967), p. 42. 1 2 position which the school maintains often confounds the situation. The Black child 1s viewed as a "sick speaker" of English. His dialect is viewed as aberrant and underdeveloped, and therefore the school system does not consider teaching him another language In addition to his own, but, rather thinks only of "remediating" his language—i.e., erasing it and replacing it with standard English.2 Naive teachers may actually mirror the attitude of the school system and add to the complexity of the issue. Abrahams pointed out that: One of the statements most often repeated by white elementary teachers about "them"—their Negro charges- is that they have no verbal resources, and because of this, no language ability. This is commonly followed by one of two rationalizing statements; either "these poor children have never been taught to speak correctly" or "they couldn't have developed verbal skills since they come from families with so many children and therefore there isn't communication with their parents." ("Why some of them don't even know who their fathers are!") Both of these statements are ethnocentric in the extreme, even if they are well-meaning.3 Miscommunication is a problem for the inner-city educator as well as for the child. The English spoken by the teacher typically is a form he wishes his students to speak. Unfortunately, the child may not be able to speak that form of English. The information provided by research has enabled the 1nner-c1ty educator to approach Stephen S. Baratz and Joan C. Baratz, "Negro Ghetto Children and Urban Education: A Cultural Solution." Linguistic-Cultural Differences and American Education, eds. Alfred C. Aarons, Barbara Y. Gordon and William A. Stewart (Miami: The Florida Fl Reporter, Spring/Summer, 1969), p. 14. 3 Roger D. Abrahams, "Black Talk and Black Education," Linguistic-Cultural Differences and American Education, eds. Alfred C. Aarons, Barbara Y. Gordon and William A. Stewart (Miami: The Florida Fl Reporter, Spring/Summer, 1969), p. 11. 3 the problem with a new but Incomplete understanding of the causes and possible solutions to it. The teacher must learn the subtleties of Black English far beyond the segmental differences reported. Abrahams asserted: . . . there 1s not only a different language at work here but a different attitude toward speech and speech acts. We are beginning to recognize that we don't know very much about the Information-passing among Negroes; but we can predict with a reasonable degree of accuracy that the subjects and methods of communication of knowledge and feeling will be quite different from white middle- class norms. The Implications of such differences are of obvious importance to teachers of Negroes, especially since they have been operating on the assumption that no cultural differences existed in this area.4 Furthermore, that the intonational variable may be a crucial cause of miscommunication, 1s exemplified 1n a recently reported incident: . . . noncommunication between Negroes and police has often led to conflict In the past. For example, . . . because Black English has a much wider tonal range than white speech, a white person can easily misinterpret the high-pitched excitable sound of blacks in conver sation. Several years ago, .. . a white Indianapolis policeman arrested several black youths on the street because he thought they were Involved in a serious argument; 1n fact, they were merely having a round of a favorite game called "Playing the Dozen" that consists of seeing which player can contrive the gaudiest obscentlties with which to describe the other player's relatives.5 An Intriguing point was that until 1972, the knowledge that speakers of Black English used a wider tonal range was mostly an "Intuitive feeling". The policeman, having had no knowledge of the H Ib1d., p. 11. 5 "How to Talk Black," Newsweek, LXXIX (February 21, 1972), 70. 4 wider tonal range used 1n Black English or when it may be used, interpreted the message in terms of an English linguistic system which was different than that of the speakers. The fault of this situation lies not with the policeman's perception of the message and situation but with the information he was forced to use in decoding the message. This seemingly Insignificant feature, intonation, may have been the prime catalyst 1n the arrest of the youths. It is vital to both the Black English speaking child and his teacher to complete the data on Intonation patterns. The teacher must not unknowingly put the child down or perhaps turn him off to education because he lacks an understanding of the child's language system. Baratz wrote: In fact, one may speculate that the first systematized indication of discrimination that a Negro child experiences occurs when the elementary school teacher communicates her disapproval and lack of understanding of the child's language. This experience may be so traumatic to the child that he may stop talking altogether while 1n school. By dealing with the child's language system as one would deal with a defect, the teacher closes off, perhaps altogether, the most significant mode of communication available to the child.6 Until ten years ago, 1n spite of acceptance that dialectal miscommunication was a problem, socio11ngu1stic and linguistic Investigations of Black speech patterns were virtually non-existent. Aurbach reported that he was only able to find three systematic Baratz and Baratz, op.clt., p. 151. Joseph Aurbach, A Phonemic and Phonetic Description of the Speech of Selected Negro "Informants of South-Central Los Angeles 5 studies of Negro speech conducted prior to 1955. He further adds that ". . . little attention has been paid until recently to urban dialects, and few systematic studies have been undertaken of Negro speech at all." 8 The reason for this research vacuum may never be known. The fact 1s that since the mid 60's, many studies have been conducted to describe the speech patterns used by the residents of the urban areas of this country. Investigations by Labov, Fasold, Shuy, Wolfram, Aurbach, Dillard, and others have provided much needed information. The findings of such studies have established that Black English is a uniform, systematic dialect. This dialect is most frequently identified as Non-Standard English, Negro Non-Standard English, or Black English. Aurbach suggested that Black English was: ... a code whose basic patterns Include some of the phonology, vocabulary, and grammar of standard English, but also includes some Items derived from other sources. 9 Some specific features that might be used by a Black English speaker are displayed in Table 1. Not all Blacks speak Black English. Labov noted, "It may also be spoken by Puerto Rican or White adolescents who were raised 1n areas dominated by Black cultural norms. Black English is thus a product of Black adolescent street culture and not biologically or (Santa Barbara, California: Speech Communications Research Laboratory, Inc., 1971), p. 7. 8 Ibid. 9 Ib1d., p. 11. Table 1* Some Differences Between Standard and Black English Variable Linking verb Possessive marker Plural marker Subject expression Verb form Past marker Verb agreement Future form "If" construction Negation Indef. article Pronoun form Preposition Be Do Standard English He is going. JohTP's, cousin. I have" five cents. John_l1ves 1n New York I drank the milk. Yesterday he walked home. He runs home. She has_ a bicycle. I will go home. I asked If he did it. I don't have any. He didn't go. I want an. apple. We have to do it. T[Ts book. He is over at his friend's house. He teaches at Francis PooT7 Statement: He is here all the time. Contradiction: No he Isn't. Black English He goln'. Jofin_cousin. I got five cent_. John he live in New York."" I drunk the milk. Yesterday he walk_home. He run_home. She have a bicycle. I'ma go home. I aks did he do it. I don't got none. He ain't go. I want a, apple. Us got to do it. Tie* book. He over to his friend house. He teach Francis Pool. Statement: He be here. Contradiction: No he don't. •Modified from George O'Neill, "NNE Grammatical Items in the Speech of Negro Elementary School Children as Correlates of Age, Grade, and Social Status" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Southern California, 1972), p. 17. 7 racially determined." Perhaps Labov has been too restrictive In pointing out that Puerto Rican or White adolescents could also speak Black English, maybe 1t would have been more appropriate to write, anyone may speak Black English 1f raised in an area dominated by Black cultural norms. Just as all Blacks do not speak Black English, not all features of Black English may be found in all speakers of Black English. Fasold wrote: Because the dialect 1s part of a continuum, there will be relatively few speakers of Black English in the narrow sense; few people will use all the contrastlve features of Black English every time it 1s possible to do so.11 The position that an individual occupies on the continuum between Standard and Black English at any particular time 1s extremely difficult to determine. However, a number of social variables have been isolated, which, when considered either singly or in combination, increase the probability of selecting where the speech falls on the continuum. Social Variables (Static) Three social variables relevant to determining the usage frequency of Black English features have been delineated. These are: (1) social status, (2) age, and (3) sex. From Elaine Tarone, "Aspects of Intonation in Vernacular White and Black English Speech" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Washington, 1972), p. 1. Ralph W. Fasold, "Tense and the Form be in Black English," Language. 45 (December, 1969), p. 763. 8 Wolfram reported that: Social status is the single most important variable correlating with linguistic differences, . . . the most clear-cut linguistic boundary is found between the lower-middle and upper-working social classes and the least clear-cut difference between upper- working and lower-working classes.12 It was also noted that female Black speakers come closer to 13 using Standard English than males and adults use fewer of the Black English features than either teenagers or adolescents. Obviously, the speaker enters a communicative situation with both sex and age established. His social status may similarly be set but not with the same inflexibility as sex and age. Each of these variables may be used in constructing an expected speaker profile. For Instance, young males residing in the poverty areas of a city will use Black English features in their speech more than females of a similar age and circumstance. Thus, these variables are relatively fixed in positioning the speech sample on the continuum between Black and Standard English. Stylistic Variable (Dynamic) The fourth variable, situation, 1s dynamic 1n relation to 1B those variables previously noted. An Individual's perception of the total speaking situation triggers specific speaking styles. The Walter A. Wolfram, A Sociolingulstlc Description of Detroit Negro Speech (Washington, D.CTT Center for Applied Linguistics, 1969), p. 214. 13 Ibid., p. 215. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid., p. 216. 9 speaking style used in any particular situation 1s the result of the demands Imposed by that situation. A formal situation, such as reading, results 1n speech which approximates Standard English as closely as the individual 1s capable of producing. Labov suggested that situation-stylistic variations were not just typical of Black English speakers but Include all speakers. Note that at each style [casual, careful, reading or word lists] there 1s a social stratification; whether v/e are listening to casual speech or to reading it 1s clear that the social background of the speaker 1s reflected in his use of these variables. But each group also shows regular style shifting in the same direction; although these social groups are very different in one sense, they are all very similar in another sense; they all use the variable in the same way. Members of a speech community are not aware of this fact; their experience is limited to (a) the whole range of speech styles used by their own family and friends and (b) the speech of a wide range of social classes in one or two styles.16 The impact of the situation variable upon style for the Black English speaker specifically has been reported by Wolfram. There 1s considerable variation based on the differentiation of Interview and reading style, the latter style consistently showing a closer approxi mation to the standard English norm. This stylistic variation Indicates that the Informants recognize (whether consciously or unconsciously) that particular variables are markers of social status. The more stylistic variation there 1s, the more socially "marked" the linguistic variable. 17 William Labov, The Study of Nonstandard English (Champaign, 111.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1970), p. 22. Wolfram, op.dt., p. 216. 10 Segmentals versus Suprasegmentals Each of the aforementioned variables provided the socio- Unguistlc researcher with knowledge of where and when Black English will be most frequently used and who might use it. Unfortunately, virtually all of the research related to the dialect has focused upon the segmental phonological or syntactical aspects of speech, whereas, the suprasegmental features have received only cursory attention. Segmental features are vowels and consonants which combine to make up syllables. Suprasegmental features are stress, open transition, breaks or Intonation. Although suprasegmentals were not systematically studied, numerous examples may be cited from previous Black English segmental studies which call attention to Intonation differences. Labov stated that: . . . there are many grammatical forms and lexical items (as well as voice qualifiers and intonation patterns) which are used almost exclusively by Negroes . . . J 8 Kochman believed that intonation was an integral part of the ethnicity of Black English. He suggested that even if the grammar changed the intonation patterns may not. . . . there are really two concepts of Black dialect that one can speak of: the linguistic or structuralist concept, which focuses on grammar, and the social or popular concept, which focuses on rhythm, Intonation and pronun ciation. Blacks who do not grammatically speak Black dialect still can satisfy the "ethnicity" of the Black context by modifying the latter aspects.' 9 18 Labov and others, op. cit., p. 3. 19 Thomas Kochman, "Culture and Communication: Implication for Black English 1n the Classroom," The Florida Fl Reporter (Spring/ Summer, 1969), pp. 91-92. 11 Of pivotal interest 1n this study was whether suprasegmentals follow the pattern of situation sensitivity that segmentals do. One approach to this problem 1s to select a suprasegmental variable which appears to be salient 1n light of preliminary existing evidence and subject it to a systematic study under varying situations. Of all the possible suprasegmentals which might be studied, the one which clearly stands out in the literature, 1s Intonation. Commenting on a discussion of an interview of a Black English speaking child by an adult White interviewer who asked the child about a block which was on a table In front of him, Labov noted, The child 1s 1n an asymetrical situation, where anything he says can literally be held against him. He has learned a number of devices to avoid saying anything 1n this situation, and he works very hard to achieve this end. One may observe the Intonation patterns which Negro children often use when they are asked a question to which the answer 1s obvious. The answer may be read as "Will this satisfy you?"20 The problem, then, was to Identify intonational differences, if any, between Standard and Black English users and to specify the extent to which any observed differences vary as a function of situational factors. The Identification of the Intonation patterns of both Black and Standard English in different speaking situations 1s paramount to the establishing of a descriptive data base. This data base now contains an extensive listing of Black and Standard English contrastive segmental features, as well as, where and when cu W1ll1am Labov, "The Logic of Non-Standard English," Linguistic Cultural Differences and American Education (Miami: The Florida Fl Reporter, 1969), p. 62. 12 they might be used. If the probability for miscommunication 1s to be reduced, then the descriptive data base must be expanded to include not only segmentals but also suprasegmentals, specifically intonation. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Although many people have volunteered "Intuitive feelings" regarding intonation, only two studies of Black English Intonation 21 patterns have been conducted. In 1967, Loman commenced but never completed a study of the stress and intonation patterns of Black English. A White adult female, using Standard English, interviewed nine paid subjects in a formal situation. Eight of the subjects were speakers of Black English and one was a speaker of Standard English. Recording equipment was kept in sight of all subjects. A number of factors, such as the money for speaking and the adult White interviewer, apparently adversely Influenced this study. As a result, it was terminated prior to final data analysis and publication. In this study, final intonation contours were categorized according to sentence type (i.e., declarative sentence, specific question, general question or fragment). Subsequently, this preliminary data was compared to similar data for Standard American English intonation patterns. Pitch levels were coded for analysis. Level 1 was the lowest pitch and level 4 was the highest pitch. Bengt Loman, "Intonation Patterns in a Negro American Dialect: A Preliminary Report" (unpublished study, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C., 1967). 13 Level 2 was considered the norm. A 32 indicated a drop from level 3 pitch to level 2 pitch. In regard to the final intonatlonal contours, Loman found: (1) a 32 contour was most commonly used with declarative sentences and fragments; (2) level contours (i.e., invariant pitch patterns; e.g., 22 or 33) were used 1n general questions. If the general question functioned as a statement of fact the final contour was falling; (3) special questions were characterized by 32 or 2 contour and (4) a 32 contour commonly used with commands. In distinguishing Black English from Standard English, Loman reported these Black English features: (1) the high frequency of primary stress, (2) a continuous shift between pitch 3 and pitch 2, corresponding with a shift between syllables of primary stress and weaker stress, and (3) a frequent use of pitch level 4 for pitch level 3, usually pronounced in a falsetto register, which 1s a pitch higher than level 4. 22 The 1972, Tarone study 1s the most detailed analysis of Black English Intonation patterns available. The purpose of the study was: to determine and describe the Intonation patterns characteristic of the adolescent vernacular of the Black street community (Black English), and to compare those patterns with Intonation patterns occurring 1n two other varieties: (a) the adolescent vernacular of the white street community (White English), and (b) the Elaine Tarone, "Aspects of Intonation 1n Vernacular White and Black English Speech" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Washington, 1972). 14 formal style used by a speaker of Black English (Formal Black English).23 Tarone began her Investigation by conducting two preliminary studies. The first was designed to gather samples of spontaneous speech from a limited number of Black English speakers. Eight boys from a local junior high school 1n a Black area of Seattle were interviewed. All the subjects were Black and all spoke Black English. A very casual recording session was maintained during the taping. The second of the preliminary studies was designed to gather 24 samples of spontaneous speech from speakers of White English. Nine subjects, four female and five male, ages sixteen to twenty-four years old, were interviewed at an alternative school for potential dropouts. All subjects were speakers of White English. The taping session was similar to that found 1n the first study. Analysis of the data provided by the two preliminary studies Indicated that Black English and White English Intonation systems may be different in the following ways: (1) In the vernacular style, Black English may be characterized by a wider range of pitch than White English, a range which often shifts into a falsetto. (2) Speakers of Black English may use more 32 final contours and more level final contours than speakers of White English, when other variables are controlled. "Ibid., p. 50. Tarone used the term White English to refer to the adolescent vernacular used by Individuals raised in areas dominated by White community norms, and used 1n Informal interaction with members of the peer group in the White adolescent street community. 15 (3) Speakers of Black English may use significantly fewer rising final contours of general questions than may be typical for speakers of White English 1n similar situations.25 The results of these preliminary studies generally supported the tentative findings of the Loman study. Tarone, in discussing these results, wrote: It 1s difficult to make a strong conclusion on the basis of these data. The recording situations were different for the two groups, and because the transcriptions were made by different phoneticians in each case, one cannot assume that the categories which are being measured are the same for both groups. Nevertheless, with these qualifications in mind, such a strong indication of a difference between the two groups on this preliminary measure would seem to suggest that the phenomenon 1s worth Investigating more rigorously and systematically.26 From these preliminary studies, Tarone proceeded to conduct another study of the intonation patterns found in vernacular Black and White English. Efforts were made to control for extraneous variables which might influence speech styles. Speech samples were gathered in informal settings. Recording equipment, including microphones, were hidden from view. All subjects were between sixteen and twenty-four years of age. The two groups of subjects were differentiated on the basis of the community with which they identified, and not on the basis of the subject's race. The Black English speaking group was composed of four males and three females who frequented a local community center. The lounge at the center was the site of the Black English speech Tarone, ibid., p. 45. Ibid., p. 44. 16 tapings. The White English speaking group was composed of four males and four females who attended an alternative school. A small room at the school was the site of the White English speech tapings. Discussions were very casual and free. Topics discussed included prostitution, marriage, divorce and male - female roles. Utterances were linguistically analyized by the researcher and two trained assistants. The following findings were reported: (1) Black English was characterized by a wider pitch range, which extended Into higher pitch levels than did White English. (2) Black English appeared to utilize a falsetto register to a much greater extent than did White English. (3) In general, Black English speakers seemed to use more rising and level final contours, while White English speakers seemed to use more falling final contours. (4) In the Black English corpus, several utterances were recorded in which Intonation alone was used to serve the grammatical function of marking the dependent clause of a conditional sentence, without concommitant use of the lexical item "if". (5) The preliminary Indication that Black English would be characterized by fewer rising terminals for general questions, was not borne out 1n this study; there was no significant difference among the speech varieties In this regard.27 Table 2 displays a comparison of the Loman and Tarone findings for Black English and Pikes findings for similar Standard English Tarone, Ibid., pp. 117-118. 17 Table 2 Comparison of Black and Standard English Intonation Terminal Contours Studies Black English Standard English Loman Tarone Pike** Declarative Sentence 32 * 31 Phrases General Question level level 23 or 34 Special Question 32 or 2 * 31 •The quality of the tapes prevented differentiation between 32 and 21 final contours. Note: Pitch levels are coded for analysis from level 1 through level 4. Level 1 is the lowest and level 4 the highest. Level 2 1s the norm. A 32 Indicates a drop from level 3 pitch to level 2 pitch. sentence types. 18 Synopsis In extending the results of previous research to the present study it 1s evident that a descriptive data base of the intonation patterns of Black English requires further Investigation. The Tarone and Loman findings Indicate that Intonation differences may exist. However, the fact that Loman did not conclude his study and that Tarone had an incomplete data description, thus preventing a thorough analysis, reduces the generalizability and comparability of their study results. Specifically, 1t is important to note that although the situation was not manipulated, that which was carefully maintained as informal in the Tarone study produced results which were very similar to the Loman study where a formal speaking situation existed. Comparison of these findings Implied that intonation may not be subject to the stylistic variations that characterize segmental features. The type of research needed to extend the Black English descriptive data base beyond segmentals and reduce the probability of miscommunication between the two dialect groups 1s a controlled systematic study which manipulates the Interview situation, obtains clear speech samples and samples a substantial number of speakers. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM The purpose of this study was to Investigate, describe, and 19 compare the intonation patterns of Black and Standard English speaking children in reading (formal) and free discourse (informal) situations for three sentence types (declarative, general and specific questions). Specifically, this study attempted to answer the following descriptive and comparative questions. Descriptive Question: (1) What intonation patterns (falling, rising, or level) exist for each possible combination (twelve comparisons) of dialect (Black or Standard English), situation (formal or informal), and sentence type (declarative, specific or general question)? Comparative Questions: (2) How do the intonation patterns of Black English differ for each sentence type and contrasting levels of formality (i.e., Black English declarative sentence formal situation versus Black English declarative sentence Informal situation and so on)? (3) How do the intonation patterns of Black English differ for contrasting sentence types and for each level of formality (i.e., Black English declarative sentence formal situation versus Black English general question formal situation and so on)? (4) How do the Intonation patterns of Black English 20 differ for contrasting sentence types and contrasting levels of formality (i.e., Black English declarative sentence formal situation versus Black English general question informal situation and so on)? (5) How do the intonation patterns of Standard English differ for each sentence type and con trasting levels of formality (i.e., Standard English declarative sentence formal situation versus Standard English declarative sentence informal situation and so on)? (6) How do the Intonation patterns of Standard English differ for contrasting sentence types and for each level of formality (i.e., Standard English specific question formal situation versus Standard English general question formal situation and so on)? (7) How do the intonation patterns of Standard English differ for contrasting sentence types and for contrasting levels of formality (i.e., Standard English declarative sentence Informal situation versus Standard English specific question formal situation and so on)? (8) How do the Intonation patterns of Black English differ from the intonation patterns of Standard 21 English for each sentence type and for each level of formality (I.e., Black English declarative sentence formal situation versus Standard English declarative sentence formal situation and so on)? (9) How do the intonation patterns of Black English differ from the intonation patterns of Standard English for each sentence type and for contrasting levels of formality (i.e., Black English declar ative sentence formal situation versus Standard English declarative sentence informal situation and so on)? (10) How do the intonation patterns of Black English differ from the Intonation patterns of Standard English for contrasting sentence types and for each level of formality (i.e., Black English specific question formal situation versus Standard English declarative sentence formal situation and so on)? (11) How do the Intonation patterns of Black English differ from the Intonation patterns of Standard English for contrasting sentence types and for contrasting levels of formality (I.e., Black English general question formal situation versus Standard English specific question and so on)? 22 USAGE OF TERMS For the purpose of this study the following definitions apply: Black English - the linguistic code of the subjects sampled from the inner city poverty area school. Standard English - the linguistic code of the subjects sampled from the upper-middle class area school. It must be recognized that linguistic differences exist between the English spoken in Boston and that spoken in Los Angeles or elsewhere. Thus, the term Standard English will differ according to area. However, basic features are generally maintained, regardless of region. Situation - the speaking tasks of the interviews. A reading task was considered to be perceived as a formal situation and free discourse as an Informal situation. (This categorization complies with Labov and Wolfram references. See Footnotes 16 and 17.) Intonation - Basic pitch sequences which make up the sentence melody. 23 Intonation Pattern - entire utterance melody. Intonation Contour - a portion of the utterance intonation pattern, either Initial intonation contour or terminal Intonation contour. Declarative Sentence - an utterance containing a subject and a verb, (e.g., I live in a big house.) If the Unking verb was Implicit but clearly understood the utterance fell Into this category, (e.g., Two million dollars, in response to the question, How much do you make?) General Question - an utterance that did not begin with an Interrogative word and could be answered with a 'yes' or 'no.' (e.g., Did you eat yet?) Reiterative tag questions (e.g.. It's Tom, Isn't 1t?) and requests for repetition (e.g., What did he say?) were also Included 1n this category. Specific Question - an utterance that began with an Interrogative word and required specific Information in reply, (e.g., Where do you live?) CHAPTER II METHOD The aim of linguistic research 1n the community must be to find out how people talk when they are not being systematically observed; yet we can only obtain this data by systematic observation. 1 The studies of Labov, Wolfram, Shuy, Aurbach, and others have demonstrated the effectiveness of systematic sociolinguistic research and revealed problems which might be encountered. The sociolinguistic researcher Investigating dialects must be sensitive to the many factors which could produce a dialect shift. The Interview setting; the age, sex, or* race of the interviewer; and the requirements of the Interview may, among other things, create a speaking style change. The need, particularly 1n Intonation studies, to obtain clear speech samples further complicates the situation. In developing the methodological framework for this study, consideration was given to each of the reported Influencing factors and variables. This resulted in a number of decisions which were deemed necessary to achieve a good design. The rationale used to support a particular decision 1s provided 1n each appropriate subsection, these being, geographic study areas, subjects, testing environment, interviewers, situation variables, material, proce- wnilam Labov, "The Study of Language in its Social Con text," Studium Generale. 23 (1969), p. 47. 24 25 dures, tape preparation, computer speech reduction and procedures for analysis. Geographic Study Areas Of the three individual scales which comprise the overall status scale, the linguistic differ entiation correlates more consistently with differences on the education and occupation scales than with the residency scale. On the education and occupation scales, the upper-middle, lower- middle, and upper-working classes are clearly differentiated from each other, but there 1s minimal difference between the upper-working and lower-working class.2 The findings previously cited weighed heavily upon the selection of the geographic areas to be used in this study. The regions from which the sample population were drawn display a clear dichotomy in resident education, occupation and income levels. Essentially they represent two distinct socioeconomic areas in Los Angeles County. The Black English speaking subjects reside in South-Central Los Angeles. This region presently contains 93 percent of the 3 Black population found in the City of Los Angeles. The area is bounded by Western Avenue on the west, Rosecrans Boulevard on the south, Alameda Boulevard on the east and Olympic Boulevard on the north. The residents of this district are generally working class Walter A. Wolfram, A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech (Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1959), p. 214. 3 Joseph Aurbach, A Phonemic and Phonetic Description of the Selected Negro Informants~of South-Central Los Angeles (Santa Barbara: Speech Communication Research Laboratories, 1971), pp. 47-48. 26 with a high school education or less. The Standard English speaking subjects reside in an area outside of the City of Los Angeles. This area 1s bounded by Pacific Coast Highway on the north, Western Avenue on the east and the Pacific Ocean on the west and south. The community is inhabited primarily by professionals, such as doctors, dentists, lawyers, and the like, who are 1n the upper-middle and higher income brackets. Subjects Two recent findings played a major role 1n the selection of the subjects. Wolfram reported that (1) males departed more from the Standard English norms than females and (2) pre-adolescents and teenager's used the social stigmatized variants more than adults. The theoretical Issue thereby raised is a considerable one: it 1s a general linguistic condition, or perhaps a special characteristic of this dialect, that archaic forms are preserved longer in the speech of children than elsewhere? Obviously, a linguistic study which focuses on the speech of children will be much more relevant to the educational world than the older studies which utilized adult Informants.5 Thirty male Black English speakers and thirty male Standard English speakers were sampled. The subjects were in the seventh and eighth grades of junior high schools located in the studied areas. The subjects ages varied between eleven and thirteen years. Wolfram, op. cit., p. 215. 5 J.L. Oillard, "The English Teacher and the Language of the Newly Integrated Student," Teachers College Record, LXIX (November, 1967), p. 116. 27 Experienced sociolinguistic and linguistic researchers were requested to listen to the tapes and report the dialect spoken. These judges confirmed the expected use of Black and Standard English. Testing Environment Each of the junior high schools provided a room, which was partially treated for noise control, for the Interviews. Noise absorbing materials, such as rugs, blankets, and curtains, were placed on walls, floors, chairs, and tables, which were not already acoustically treated. The subjects were positioned opposite each other at a large table. Incandescent portable lights were used to remove the noise created by the permanent flourescent fixtures already in the rooms. All recording and monitoring equipment was located in a room adjacent to the interview room. Directional microphones were positioned in front of each subject but not on the table. The microphones were attached to a boom type stand. The decision of whether to hide the microphones or place them 1n front of the subjects was one of the most difficult to make, primarily because of conflicting reports. In previous sociolinguistic studies the presence of microphones needed for recordings introduced a feeling of formality to the Interview. Thomas Frentz from the University of Southern California and two linguistic researchers from the Systems Development Corporation, Santa Monica, California. 28 Tarone achieved some success by hiding the microphone but unfortunately sacrificed recording quality. Pitch changes of less than two levels could not be distinguished. On the other hand, o Loman placed the microphones 1n front of the subject. This not only produced clearer speech samples, but also increased subject anxiety. After careful consideration and consultation with acoustical experts, teachers, and even children, it was decided to expose the microphones. The major Influencing factors in this decision were: (1) The use of recording equipment was not an unusual occurrence 1n either of the schools that the subjects attended. It was a practice to make recordings of the subjects speech and play it back to them. (2) A computer pitch extraction routine was used to translate the speech signal into a tabular digital output. The computer cannot differentiate between a finger snap or a voice, since both are merely sounds. Therefore, clear speech samples Elaine Tarone, "Aspects of Intonation 1n Vernacular White and Black English Speech" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Washington, 1972). o Bengt Loman, "Intonation Patterns in Negro American Dialect: A Preliminary Report" (unpublished study, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C., 1967). 29 with a minimum of background noise are required. (3) The Interview was specifically designed to be an g enjoyable experience for the subjects. (4) The preliminary findings of the Loman study Imply that intonation patterns were not altered by the presence of microphones. Interviewers A Black male conducted the Interviews of the Black English speaking subjects and a White male conducted the Interviews of the Standard English speaking subjects. Many of the difficulties encountered in attempting to elicit natural speech from subjects are brought on by the Interviewer. It 1s very important to relax the subject and avoid the development of a threatening situation. 12 The studies of Labov offered guidelines on how this may be accomplished. The following suggestions were Incorporated into this study: (1) The interviewers had prior experience with subjects This goal was evidently achieved. Both the subjects after the interview and the teachers on subsequent occasions expressed great enthusiasm to participate 1n the Interviews. The typical subject response was, "Hey, that was fun, can I do it again?" Loman, op. cit. The interviewer served only as a director. He did not participate in the questioning of the subjects. The subjects actually interviewed each other. 12 William Labov, "Academic Ignorance and Black Intelligence," Atlantic, February, 1973, pp. 59-67. 30 of the age bracket sampled. (2) The Interviewers were of the same race as the subjects. (3) The Interviewers spoke the same dialect as the subjects. Situation Variables Formal and Informal situations were operationalized respectively by having subjects read a script and Interact spontaneously. A written script was composed for the formal part of the interview. Teachers, researchers, and children were consulted on both the form and content of the script prior to Its use. The topic of the script was a fictional radio Interview between two well known basketball stars, Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain. It Incorporated a continuous one-upmanship theme with one character "scoring" on the other and vice-versa. For example: Bill: . . . Tell me Wilt, was this the best night you ever had? W1lt: Not really the best, but maybe one of the better games. Bill: I can't remember any better. Wilt: That's because you're so old that you forget things quickly. Three distinct purposes were served by reading the script: (1) Similarly contructed sentences were obtained for 'The complete script may be found 1n Appendix A. 31 all subjects. (2) A situation often found in the school classroom was created. (3) Read speech, which has previously been characterized by Labov and Wolfram as producing a formal speaking style, was available for analysis. The formal speaking style (reading) typically approxi mates Standard English closer than any other style used by the Black English speaker. This data could be analyzed to determine 1f intonation patterns follow this stylistic variation. In the informal situation, topics of general or casual interest were introduced. The first two topics were used in all 16 interviews. The topics were: (1) If you (a) were B111 Russell and this was your show, what questions would you ask 17111? If you (b) were W1lt how would you answer his questions? (2) If you (b) were Wilt Chamberlain and this was your show, what questions would you ask Bill? If you (a) were Bill how would you answer his question? 14 , Jat 15, William Labov, The Study of Nonstandard English (Champaign, 111.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1970J, pp. 22-27. subjects. Wolfram, op. cit., p. 216. The letters 'a' and 'b' are used to differentiate between 32 (3) You're (a) a policeman who just arrived at a car accident. Your (b) car was hit by someone else's. What would you (a) ask to find out what happened and how would you (b) answer? (4) You're (b) the principal of this school and you're (a) the roughest toughest kid in school. A teacher has just sent you (a) to see the principal because you (a) beat up ten kids. How would you (b) find out what has happened and how would (b) answer? (5) Each of you 1s your mother. You meet each other in a supermarket and start talking about your sons (yourselves). (6) You (a) think of an animal and you (b) try to find out what animal it 1s. You (b) can only ask questions which he (a) can answer 'yes' or 'no.' (7) You (a) ask him (b), "Do you know a word that begins with 'a'?" He (b) then says a word like 'acorn.' You (b) then ask him (a), "Do you know a word that begins with V? " He (a) says a word like 'bat.' Do this until you run out of letters or you can't think of a word. Material A single track, 7 1/2 Inch per second Ampex Model 600 recorder was used. The design of the recorder, which had three heads, permitted the monitoring of both speech input and final taped 33 speech without stopping. An Ampex Model 620 speaker was used to monitor the recordings. Two low impedance Electro-Voice 664 directional microphones fed through a preset mixer to the recorder. Microphones were attached to boom type stands. Seven inch reels with 1/4 inch by 1200 feet, 1.5 mil professional recording tape was used for all recordings. Procedures The interview was designed to be no longer than thirty minutes 1n length. Discussions with experienced interviewers revealed that Interviews with children should be limited to such a duration. They found that no matter how enjoyable the interview was young subjects would become bored if it was lengthy. The interview session may be considered to have three separate sections, although once the taping began the subjects speech was recorded continuously. Two subjects were interviewed together. The first section lasted approximately five minutes. It was a familiarization, introduction, and instruction period. The second section lasted between five and eight minutes. This time was used for the reading of a script. The third and final section lasted between eight and twelve minutes. This time was used for free discourse and game playing. Subjects were sent to the interview room by classroom The recording of two subjects together has been found to be an effective technique of anxiety reduction. See Labov, Footnote 13, p. 62. i 34 18 teachers. When the subjects arrived, the interviewer introduced himself, by first name only. Several minutes were used for casual talk, which Included questions like: Do you like sports? What's your favorite sport? Have you ever listened to the Bill Russell Show? The interviewer then gave the script to the subjects and asked them to sit down at the table. When they were settled, the following instructions v/ere given: I am collecting samples of children's voices. After I have enough a computer will listen to each voice and give me a picture of what it hears. The first thing I'd like you to do 1s read from this script. It is a make believe interview on the Bill Russell Show. He 1s talking to W1lt Chamberlain. Who want's to be Bill? Ok, look over your parts. The subject's were given several minutes to read over the script. During this time the microphones were adjusted and tested 19 for each subject. The interviewer began the session by saying, "Ok Bill, It's your show, take over." The interviewer then withdrew from the subject's view by moving away from the interview table. Upon completion of the reading the interviewer returned and started the subjects Into the free discourse and game playing section. Normally, time permitted only two to four of the topics to be used, depending on the time consumed in reading. After starting the Casual attire was worn at all times. An interview assistant monitored the recording equipment. 35 subjects on a topic the interviewer v/ould withdraw from their view. In every case the subjects were talking to each other. When the subjects found a topic difficult to discuss the interviewer would introduce another. The assistant signalled the interviewer to end the session after reaching the time limit. The tape was then rewound and played back for the subjects. Tape Preparation Fifteen interviews of thirty subjects were recorded for each group. Sixteen, seven inch reels of tape were used. The tapes v/ere subsequently prepared for the computer pitch analysis. The requirements of the computer program necessitated the rerecording of the speech samples. Background noise of any type during the utterance could not be tolerated. Furthermore, a two to four second silent interval was required between each utterance. All interview tapes were listened to by two judges. Utterances which met the computer requirements were noted for rerecording. Each of the acceptable utterances was categorized according to sentence type, declarative, specific question or general question. The rerecording process produced four seven inch reels of sampled speech. These tapes v/ere labeled accordingly: Tape Title Utterance Series A Black English Reading 201 - 343 B Standard English Reading 401 - 544 C Black English Free Discourse 601 - 757 36 Tape Title Utterance Series D Standard English Free Discourse 801 - 953 Computer Speech Reduction All utterances contained on the four prepared tapes were digitized on four computer tapes correspondingly labeled. A pitch extraction program reduced each utterance to Its respective pitch pattern. A tabular output, which presented the fundamental frequency (Hz) every ten milliseconds, was generated by the program. A sample of this tabular printout is contained 1n the Appendix B. Several spectrographs, which were used as checks on the computer program and the tabular printout for the same utterances, are provided 1n Appendix C. A total of 534 sentences were reduced to their respective pitch patterns for analysis. Procedures for Analysis Because sentences varied in the number of words and utterance duration, it v/as necessary to develop a set of procedures to prepare the raw data for analysis. Underlying the data preparation scheme was the assumption that the Intonation patterns (melody) of a sentence carry across its entire length. Although specific phonological combinations may produce transitory excursions (sharp peaks) the overall sentence intonation will be dependent on sentence function (I.e., specific question, and so on). In other words, regular intonation patterns for particular sentence types will prevail regardless of word selection or utterance duration (time). In support of this premise Pike wrote: 37 The changes in pitch which occur within a sentence are not haphazard variation. The patterns of variation, the rules of change, are highly organized. Their Intricacy is so great that, although one speaks his language with little effort, their analysis 1s extremely difficult and may Induce one to conclude that no actual organi zation or rules are present, but that people use pitches by whim and fancy. In each language, however, the use of pitch fluctuation tends to become semi-standardized, or formalized, so that all speakers of the language use basic pitch sequences in similar ways under similar circum stances. These abstracted characteristic sentence melodies may be called INTONATION CONTOURS.20 A percentage design v/as used to accomplish an orderly transition from continuous ten millisecond fundamental frequency (Hz) printout raw scores to data points for analysis. Thirty data points were extracted from each sentence. The first (1) data point v/as the first fundamental frequency value for the sentence (start of utterance, 0%). The final (30) data point was the last fundamental frequency value for the sentence (end of utterance, 100%). Each data point between one and thirty was separated by approximately 3 1/3 percent of the total utterance time. Speech interruptions (pauses or hesitations) which were characterized by drops to zero Hz were excluded from utterance total time calculations. The deletion of such breaks in the utterance resulted in a continuous speech pattern, thus, a continuous intonation contour for analysis. Figure 1 provides a plctoral representation of the raw scores of an utterance and the selected data points. It is apparent K.L. Pike, The Intonation of American English (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1946), p. 20. >- cr 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 RAW SCORES RECORDED EVERY TEN MILLISECONDS >-yo 100 200 300 MILLISECOND S 400 500 600 700 800 Figure 1 Analysis Scheme for Utterance #801 - Where Do You Live? (Selected Data Points are Numbered) 39 from the Illustration that the data point selection scheme did not adversely affect the total sentence Intonation pattern. The step- by-step procedure for determining data points was as follows: (1) Acoustically determine utterance start and finish. This v/as accomplished by comparing the taped utterance times, as measured with a stop watch, to printout times. (2) Subtract the millisecond figure for utterance start (data point 1, 0%) from the millisecond figure for utterance end (data point 30, 100%). (3) Subtract total pause or hesitation time from Step 2 remainder. (4) Divide Step 3 remainder by 30 (number of data points to be extracted). (5) Select data points from printout using quotient of Step 4 as the Interval between data points. If the interval was fractional, i.e., 5.5 or 6.2, the lower figure was used until the fraction multiplied by the number of Intervals equaled one. Then the higher figure v/as used, e.g., an interval of 5.5 v/as 5 until .5X2 intervals = 1.0. For this example (5.5), every second Interval Increased from 5 to 6. (6) Transcribe data point fundamental frequency values according to sentence types (declarative, specific question or general question), dialect (Black or 40 Standard English), situation (formal or informal) and data point number (1 through 30). Summary The speech of thirty Black and thirty Standard English speaking male subjects v/as recorded in formal and informal situations for intonation pattern comparison. Utterances were reduced to respective pitch patterns by a computer program. Tabular printouts were categorized according to dialect (Black or Standard English), situation (formal or Informal), and sentence type (declarative, specific or general question). A percentage scheme was applied to raw data printouts in preparation for statistical analysis. CHAPTER III RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The Intent of this study was to Investigate, describe, and compare the Intonation patterns of Black and Standard English speaking children In reading (formal) and free discourse (Informal) situations for three sentence types (declarative, general and specific questions). Eleven questions were posed accordingly: Descriptive Question: (1) What Intonation patterns (falling, rising, or level) exist for each possible combination (twelve comparisons) of dialect (Black or Standard English), situation (formal or Informal), and sentence type (declarative, specific or general questions)? Comparative Questions? (2) How do the Intonation patterns of Black English differ for each sentence type and contrasting levels of formality (I.e., Black English declarative sentence formal situation versus Black English declarative sentence Informal situation and so on)? (3) How do the intonation patterns of Black English differ for contrasting sentence types and for each level of formality (I.e., Black English 41 42 declarative sentence formal situation versus Black English general question formal situation and so on)? (4) How do the intonation patterns of Black English differ for contrasting sentence types and contrasting levels of formality (i.e., Black English declarative sentence formal situation versus Black English general question Informal situation and so on)? (5) How do the Intonation patterns of Standard English differ for each sentence type and contrasting levels of formality (i.e.. Standard English declarative sentence formal situation versus Standard English declarative sentence Informal situation and so on)? (6) How do the intonation patterns of Standard English differ for contrasting sentence types and for each level of formality (I.e., Standard English specific question formal situation versus Standard English general question formal situation and so on)? (7) How do the Intonation patterns of Standard English differ for contrasting sentence types and for contrasting levels of formality (I.e., Standard English declarative sentence Informal situation versus Standard English specific question formal 43 situation and so on)? (8) How do the intonation patterns of Black English differ from the Intonation patterns of Standard English for each sentence type and for each level of formality (I.e., Black English declarative sentence formal situation versus Standard English declarative sentence formal situation and so on)? (9) How do the intonation patterns of Black English differ from the Intonation patterns of Standard English for each sentence type and for contrasting levels of formality (i.e., Black English declarative sentence formal situation versus Standard English declarative sentence Informal situation and so on)? (10) How do the Intonation patterns of Black English differ from the Intonation patterns of Standard English for contrasting sentence types and for each level of formality (I.e., Black English specific question formal situation versus Standard English declarative sentence formal situation and so on)? (11) How do the Intonation patterns of Black English differ from the Intonation patterns of Standard English for contrasting sentence types and for contrasting levels of formality (I.e., Black 44 English general question formal situation versus Standard English specific question and so on)? Speech samples were gathered from thirty Black and thirty Standard English male speakers. Taped utterances were reduced to fundamental frequency pitch patterns by a computer pitch extraction routine, which generated a tabular printout of the fundamental frequency (Hz) measured every ten milliseconds. A percentage scheme was used to control for varying utterance time and prepare printout raw data for analysis. Thirty data points, with intervals of approximately 3 1/3 percent of utterance time (30 data points X 3 1/3 percent of utterance time = 100% of total utterance) were selected from each utterance. The Hz figures for all data points were then summed, according to respective data point numbers 1 through 30, I.e., all utterance data point 1 figures were summed together, all data point 2 figures were summed together, and so on. Means were then calculated for each sentence type (declarative, specific and general questions), dialect (Black or Standard English), and situation (formal or Informal). Additionally, data point means were used to calculate correlation coefficients and plot utterance Intonation patterns (Table of Correlation Coefficients In Appendix E) . Since considerable controversy exists over the Interpre tation of statistical significance 1n linguistic studies which deal with signal perception by humans and Individual differences, a significance level such as .05 or .01 was not set as the yardstick 45 for evaluating the correlation coefficients. In Heu of this, a standardized appraisal of correlation coefficients was accomplished by applying a modified guide proposed by Guilford. A correlation coefficient of +1.0 to +.70 was termed a high correlation, Indicating little or no difference between the compared Intonation patterns. A correlation coefficient of +.70 to +.20 was termed a moderate correlation, Indicating differences between intonation patterns. A correlation coefficient of +.20 to -1.0 was termed a slight to Inverse correlation, Indicating definite differences with few 1f any similarities between the compared Intonation patterns. For the purpose of brevity the following code was used 1n this and the subsequent chapter. BL - Black English ST • Standard English Dialect Sentence Types Situations S = Specific Question G * General Question D = Declarative Sentence I = Informal F = Formal CC = Correlation Coefficient For example: BLDF « Black English Declarative Sentence Formal J.P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics In Psychology and Education (New York: McGraw - Hill, Inc., 1956), p. 145. 46 Situation. The results of this study are presented 1n sections headed by each question posed 1n the problem statement. Descriptive Question Question One: What Intonation pattern (falling, rising, or level) exists for each possible combination of dialect (Black or Standard English), situation (formal or Informal), and sentence type (declarative, specific or general questions)? This question was posed to seek a description of the Intonation characteristics for all mean utterances and a comparison with previous Black and Standard English Intonation study findings. However, since the pitch analysis methods used in previous studies (phonetic individual analysis) and this study (computer analysis) produced vastly different data measures, ordinal versus ratio, direct comparison became difficult. An intonation pattern, defined as a comparison of the fundamental frequency figure for data point 1 to data point 30 for each mean utterance, 1s presented In Table 3. Intonation patterns were characterized as falling, rising or remaining level. Utterances which had a one Hz or less difference between the two data points 47 Table 3 Intonation Patterns for Mean Utterances (First and Last Fundamental Frequency Values) Fundamental Frequency (Hz) Utterance Code BLDF BLDI STDF STDI BLSF BLSI STSF STSI BLGF BLGI STGF STGI Intonation Pattern falling level falling falling falling falling falling falling rising rising level rising Data 1 217.93 198.92 228.78 230.05 211.29 214.95 233.89 227.55 209.17 207.24 212.37 239.58 Point 30 186.12 198.69 212.58 194.18 185.58 177.19 186.59 201.52 206.19 212.22 212.26 241.20 48 2 were considered level. It was recognized that gross changes in fundamental frequency could occur between data points 1 and 30 but not be reflected in the classification description. Although this was a crude measure, 1t provided a descriptive Intonation characteristic which could be compared to expected cultural Intonation patterns (i.e., declarative sentence pitch usually falls across the entire utterance while general question pitch rises or remains level across the entire utterance). All declarative sentence and specific question utterances for both dialects were characterized as falling except BLDI which was level. All general question utterances were characterized as rising, except STGF which was level. Since the previous studies focused on terminal Intonation contours, it was necessary for comparison (which as noted previously would not be direct because of data measure differences) to further divide the Intonation patterns for the mean utterance into Initial and terminal Intonation contours. The Initial Intonation contour, presented 1n Table 4, was defined as the fundamental frequency values of data points 1 and 2. All Initial Intonation contours for both dialects were falling, except BLSI and BLDI which were rising. Subjects can discriminate tones which differ by one Hz or more. J.L. Flanagan and M.G. Saslow, "Pitch Discrimination for Synthetic Vowels," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 30 (1958), pp. 435-34?: 49 Table 4 Initial Intonation Contour for Mean Utterances (First Two Fundamental Frequency Values) Utterance Code BLDF BLDI STDF STDI BLSF BLSI STSF STSI BLGF BLGI STGF STGI Intonation Pattern falling rising falling falling falling rising falling falling falling falling falling falling Fundamental Frequency (Hz) Data Point 1 2 217.93 198.92 228.78 230.05 211.29 214.95 233.89 227.55 209.17 207.24 212.37 239.58 202.90 201.21 226.70 225.56 209.81 212.60 221.89 218.74 199.56 195.92 210.16 224.98 50 The terminal Intonation contour, presented in Table 5, was defined as the fundamental frequency values of data points 29 and 30. All terminal Intonation contours for the Black English declarative sentence and specific question mean utterances were rising, whereas, the terminal Intonation contours for the general question mean utterances were level. Terminal Intonation contours for the Standard English declarative sentence and specific question formal mean utterances were falling. The informal mean utterance terminal Intonation contour was rising for the declarative sentence and level for the specific question. The Standard English general question mean utterances displayed falling terminal intonation contours. Discussion When the Initial and terminal intonation contours were considered in isolation, substantial differences between Black and Standard English existed. Black English exhibited more level and rising Intonation contours for all situations and sentence types than Standard English. However, when the mean utterance Intonation pattern was considered, there were only two cases, BLDI and STGF, where differences existed between the two dialects for particular sentence types. Both BLDI and STGF exhibited a level Intonation pattern. In terms of the mean utterance intonation patterns, the Standard English expectation for the specific question sentence type, which should have been a falling Intonation pattern, was supported by 51 Table 5 Terminal Intonation Contour for Mean Utterances (Last Two Fundamental Frequency Values) Fundamental Frequency (Hz) Utterance Code BLDF BLDI STDF STDI BLSF BLSI STSF STSI BLGF BLGI STGF STGI Intonation Pattern rising rising falling rising rising rising falling level level level falling falling 29 184.33 189.10 216.38 189.79 178.40 175.21 192.70 200.90 205.31 212.41 222.05 250.56 30 186.12 198.69 212.58 194.18 185.58 177.19 186.59 201.52 206.19 212.22 212.26 241.20 52 both dialects In each situation. The expected, slightly falling Intonation pattern, for declarative sentences was supported 1n all cases except BLDI, which exhibited a level Intonation pattern. All general question sentences types displayed a rising pattern, except STGF which displayed a level pattern. This finding, however, was not a complete surprise. Tarone reported: There has been some controversy over the Issue of whether or not terminal contours do rise for general questions 1n SE. A study by Fries presented data obtained from a TV quiz show, 1n which the majority of the final contours on general questions FELL instead of rising. Subsequent to Fries' study* Harris did several studies in which he extracted data on general question intonation from a variety of situational contexts, Instead of just one. The results of this study Indicated that rising Intonation was Indeed favored for general questions, in accordance with the rule.3 When considering the Initial Intonation contours, 1t was found that all mean utterances displayed falling contours except BLDI and BLSI which displayed rising contours. The finding that the BLDI and BLSI mean utterances displayed rising Initial intonation contours was surprising, particularly for the specific question. Specific questions begin with interrogative words (I.e., what, where, or who and the like), which usually display pitch drops because of consonantal combinations. This intonation phenomenon could be attributed to communicative system differences between vernacular Black and Standard English. The Black English Elaine Tarone, "Aspects of Intonation In Vernacular White and Black English Speech" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Washington, 1972), p. 38. 53 Initial falling Intonation patterns occurred only 1n the informal situations, Indicating a link between vernacular Black English and the Informal situation. Previous research findings, which were summarized in Table 2, have provided a phonetic comparison of Black and Standard English utterance terminal intonation contours. Although this study did not focus upon terminal Intonation contours, but rather upon overall utterance Intonation patterns, similarities in findings do appear to exist. Black English mean utterance terminal intonation contours were either rising or level. The Standard English declarative informal mean utterance terminal Intonation contour was rising, while all others were falling or level. A comparison between the dialects for each sentence type indicated that Black English displayed different terminal Intonation contours than Standard English for all utterances except declarative Informal (i.e., Black English general question mean utterances had level terminal Into nation contours while Standard English general question mean utterances had falling terminal Intonation contours). The finding that Black English used more rising or level terminal Intonation contours was supported by the findings of Loman and Tarone. Apparently, the Black English communicative system conveys equivalent Standard English messages via different terminal intonation contours. Comparative Questions It was the purpose of this following series of comparative questions to establish a sequential analysis which would Investigate 54 all possible descriptive combinations. Several of the questions posed require that comparisons between more than one contrasting variable be made, I.e., both dialect and situation were manipulated or dialect, situation and sentence type were manipulated. It was not possible to determine which variable was most responsible for the resultant correlation coefficient. However, the logical order of analysis (i.e., first, within dialect situation, second, between dialects but within situations, and so on) allows for a reasonably accurate comparison. Thus, if BLDF is very similar to STDF, and BLDF and STDF are very similar to BLDI and STDI respectively, then It could be expected that BLDF should be similar to STDI and so on. Question Two: How do the Intonation patterns of Black English differ for each sentence type and contrasting levels of formality? This question was posed to determine what effect situation manipulation had upon Black English Intonation patterns. The following Black English mean utterances were compared to answer the question: declarative formal (BLDF) versus declarative Informal (BLDI), specific question formal (BLSF) versus specific question Informal (BLSI), and general question formal (BLGF) versus general question Informal (BLGI). BLDF versus BLDI _________ _ For the declarative sentence mean utterance, the correlation 55 coefficient between the formal (BLDF) and informal (BLDI) situations of .5293 Indicated that differences existed between the Intonation patterns. The formal utterance was characterized by a falling mean utterance Intonation pattern, whereas the Informal utterance was characterized by a level mean utterance Intonation pattern (Figure 2) . Furthermore, the formal utterance displayed a slightly wider fundamental frequency range, starting higher and finishing lower than the Informal utterance. BLSF versus BLSI For the specific question mean utterances, the correlation coefficient between the formal (BLSF) and Informal (BLSI) situations of .9175 Indicated that little or no difference existed between the Intonation patterns. Each utterance was characterized by an overall falling Intonation pattern (Figure 3). The fundamental frequency began dropping from approximately data point 6 through termination. BLGF versus BLGI For the general question mean utterances, the correlation coefficient between the formal (BLGF) and informal (BLGI) situations of .1223 Indicated that definite differences existed between the intonation patterns. The formal utterance was characterized by a level Intonation pattern, whereas the informal utterance was rising (Figure 4). Furthermore, the Informal utterance displayed much greater pitch changes than the formal utterance. A point by point analysis revealed that the Intonation patterns displayed were similar at only two points, the Initial utterance stages (each 56 C C • .53 1 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS Figure 2 Intonation Patterns for Black English Declarative Formal (BLDF) versus Black English Declarative Informal (BLDI) 255 CC = .92 1 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS Figure 3 Intonation Patterns for Black English Specific Formal (BLSF) versus Black English Specific Informal (BLSI) < n — ; to oo o» o 7 T <Q 3 rt- O to 01 rt- rt » O F U N D A M F R E Q U T A L C Y en OT CO o —• ro \o —» (71 O -J . CD m 3" en a 3 ffi 1 fil 3 -h O co i— £T5 01 n — r n 3 tn m 3 ro -i 0> o eo r- C3 (Q -5 ro 3* en -o o to en o ro en eo o f co co r — r- a CD \ i l 1 r T i X ro ro ro ro -r* en en o en ro en 58 displayed level contours). Table 6 summarizes the correlation coefficients for Question Two. Table 6 Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Two - Black English Sentence Declarative Specific General Situation Formal : Informal .53 .92 .12 Discussion The correlation coefficients Indicated that manipulation of the formality of the speaking situation produced different Intonation patterns for the Black English declarative sentence and general question mean utterances, but not for the specific question mean utterances. It was reasoned that the selection of a smaller number of interrogative words to begin a specific question accounted for the strong similarity between the intonation patterns and that the much larger number of v/ords to select from to begin a general question or declarative sentence accounted for the dissimilarity between Intonation patterns. It was expected that the specific question, because of similar beginning words, would have the same 59 initial Intonation contours between varying levels of formality. However, the Initial Intonation contours for the specific question and declarative sentence were different for the formal and informal mean utterances, whereas the general question Initial intonation contours were the same. Thus, the hypothesis of particular word selection for sentence types was rejected. An alternative explanation was that the difference between the formal and Informal general question was the result of the situation manipulation. The reading (formal) situation forced an Intonatlonal set on the subject but free discourse (Informal) allowed subjects to exercise different attitudinal Intonation pattern combinations. For Instance, an angry, "DID YOU do this?" produced a different intonation pattern than a casual, "Did you do THIS?" However, the specific question, in this study, was used by the subjects to secure rather impersonal, unemotional types of information, such as type of car or home address. The declarative sentence was generally, but not alv/ays, the Impersonal response to specific questions. Interjections were typically used for general question responses. Therefore, the situation manipulation did not Influence the specific question utterance Intonation patterns, but did Influence the declarative sentence and general question utterance Intonation patterns. A review of the fundamental frequency range and mean value for each of the mean utterances Indicated that both the declarative sentence and general question utterances had larger ranges and 60 differences between means than the specific question mean utterance. Question Three: How do the intonation patterns of Black English differ for contrasting sentence types and for each level of formality? This question was posed to determine the relationship between the intonation patterns for different sentence types while holding the speaking situation constant. The following Black English mean utterances were compared to answer the question: declarative formal (BLDF) versus specific question formal (BLSF), declarative formal (BLDF) versus general question formal (BLGF), specific question formal (BLSF) versus general question formal (BLGF), declarative Informal (BLDI) versus specific question Informal (BLSI), declarative informal (BLDI) versus general question informal (BLGI), and specific question Informal (BLSI) versus general question informal (BLGI). BLDF versus BLSF For the formal situation the correlation coefficient between the declarative (BLDF) and specific question (BLSF) mean utterances of .6263 Indicated that differences existed between the intonation patterns. The mean utterance Intonation patterns were characterized as falling for each sentence type (Figure 5). The Initial and terminal intonation contours were also the same for each mean utterance. However, the specific question mean utterance displayed a fundamental frequency peak near mid-utterance (data point 9) , 61 —I •=c>- t- o z 2: UJ Ul S= 3 •xar 0 ui zo : _> u. u_ 255 240 225 210 195 180 165 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 DAT A POINTS Figure 5 Intonation Patterns for Black English Declarative Formal (BLDF) versus Black English Specific Formal (BLSF) BLDF BLSF —»_* ••• • __ ! \SJ * 1 62 whereas the declarative sentence mean utterance fundamental frequency peaked at utterance beginning (data point 1) . BLDF versus BLGF For the formal situation the correlation coefficient between the declarative (BLDF) and general question (BLGF) mean utterances of -.3352 indicated that definite differences existed between the Intonation patterns. The mean utterance Intonation pattern for the declarative sentence was falling (Figure 6) , whereas for the general question it was rising. The terminal Intonation contour for the declarative sentence was falling while for the general question 1t was level. Only the Initial falling Intonation contours were similar. BLSF versus BLGF For the formal situation, the correlation coefficient between the specific question (BLSF) and general question (BLGF) mean utterances of -.4326 indicated that definite differences existed between the intonation patterns. The mean utterance intonation pattern for the specific question was falling (Figure 7) , whereas for the general question 1t v/as rising. The terminal intonation contour for the specific question was rising while for the general question it v/as level. Only the Initial falling Intonation contours were similar. BLDI versus BLSI For the Informal situation the correlation coefficient 63 C C = -.34 1 5 10 DAT A POINTS Figure 6 Intonation Patterns for Black English Declarative Formal (BLDF) versus Black English General Formal (BLGF) _, 255 <>- 240 z z 225 Ul Ul _:=> 210 <c r a ui ZQ : 185 195 'V - *.-.*'-^ BLSF BLGF '••^.•-' #s - ••-'"..•A *m$[ CC = K ^*\ -.4 3 •-« *- 165 1 5 10 15 20 25 DAT A POINTS Figure 7 Intonation Patterns for Black English Specific Formal (BLSF) versus Black English General Formal (BLGF) 30 64 between the declarative (BLDI) and specific question (BLSI) mean utterances of .5249 Indicated that differences existed between the Intonation patterns. The mean utterance Intonation pattern for the declarative sentence was level (Figure 8), whereas for the specific question 1t was falling. Both the Initial and terminal intonation contours for each mean utterance were rising. BLDI versus BLGI For the Informal situation the correlation coefficient between the declarative (BLDI) and general question (BLGI) mean utterances of -.1406 Indicated that definite differences existed between the intonation patterns. The mean utterance Intonation pattern and the terminal Intonation contour for the declarative sentence were falling (Figure 9), whereas for the general question they were rising. The Initial Intonation contour for the declarative sentence was rising while for the general question 1t was falling. BLSI versus BLGI For the informal situation the correlation coefficient between the specific question (BLSI) and general question (BLGI) mean utterances of -.6392 Indicated that definite differences existed between the Intonation patterns. The mean utterance intonation pattern for the specific question was falling (Figure 10), whereas for the general question it was rising. The Initial Intonation contour for the specific question was rising while for the general question it was falling. The terminal Intonation contour for the 65 i—o _: => O Ul 38 * 180 255 240 225 210 195 165 CC = .52 ,•«•••"•* BLDI — BLSI 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 DAT A POINTS Figure 8 Intonation Patterns for Black English Declarative Informal (BLDI) versus Black English Specific Informal (BLSI) 255 «o- CC = -.14 1 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS 20 30 Figure 9 Intonation Patterns for Black English Declarative Informal (BLDI) versus Black English General Informal (BLGI) 66 _, 255 <c>- 240 i - o z z 225 Ul Ul .-- , 210 195 180 165 <ccx o ui z cm _ > u. '•w " BLSI BLGI __ r£l£S-^ C C = -.64 1 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS 20 25 30 Figure 10 Intonation Patterns for Black English Specific Informal (BLSI) versus Black English General Informal (BLGI) 67 specific question was rising while for the general question it was level. Table 7 summarizes the correlation coefficients for Question Three. Table 7 Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Three - Black English Situation Formal Informal D:S .62 .52 Sentences D:G -.34 -.14 S:G -.43 -.64 Discussion The cultural expectation, that the intonation patterns for each sentence type differed, was supported. The correlation coefficients Indicated that the mean utterance intonation patterns were different for each sentence type. There was no doubt that the general question Intonation patterns were different than those from either the specific question or declarative sentence. Differences between the specific question and declarative sentence mean utterances were not as strong as those for the general question but did exist. Question Four: How do the Intonation patterns of 68 Black English differ for contrasting sentence types and contrsting levels of formality? This question was posed to determine if the relationship between the intonation patterns for different sentence types was affected by different situations. The following Black English mean utterances were compared to answer this question: declarative formal (BLDF) versus specific question Informal (BLSI), declarative informal (BLDI) versus specific question formal (BLSF), declarative formal (BLDF) versus general question Informal (BLGI), declarative informal (BLDI) versus general question formal (BLGF), specific question formal (BLSF) versus general question Informal (BLGI), and specific question informal (BLSI) versus general question formal (BLGF). BLDF versus BLSI The correlation coefficient between the declarative formal (BLDF) and specific question Informal (BLSI) mean utterances of .7435 indicated that little or no difference existed between Intonation patterns. The mean utterance Intonation patterns were characterized as falling for each sentence type (Figure 11). The Initial Into nation contour was falling for the declarative sentence but rising for the specific question. Each mean utterance had rising terminal Intonation contours. 69 255 —i <>. 240 t— <_> z z 225 UIUI 210 < » 195 a ui za : 180 _>u. u- 165 . DATA " POINTS Figure 11 Intonation Patterns for Black English Declarative Formal (BLDF) versus Black English Specific Informal (BLSI) BLD F BLSI 5 C C = .74 „ „ JP - - 15 20 25 30 70 BLDI versus BLSF The correlation coefficient between the declarative Informal (BLDI) and specific question formal (BLSF) mean utterances of .5107 Indicated that differences existed between the Intonation patterns. The mean utterance Intonation pattern for the declarative sentence was level (Figure 12), whereas for the specific question 1t was falling. The initial intonation contour was rising for the declarative sentence while 1t was falling for the specific question. Each mean utterance had rising terminal intonation contours. BLDF versus BLGI The correlation coefficient between declarative formal (BLDF) and general question Informal (BLGI) mean utterances of -.3139 indicated that definite differences existed between Intonation patterns. The mean utterance intonation pattern for the declarative sentence was falling (Figure 13), whereas for the general question it was rising. Each utterance had falling initial Intonation contours. The terminal Intonation contour for the declarative sentence was rising while for the general question it was level. BLDI versus BLGF The correlation coefficient between declarative informal (BLDI) and general question formal (BLGF) mean utterances of -.1490 Indicated that definite differences existed between Intonation patterns. The mean utterance Intonation pattern for the declarative 71 255 «<>- z z Ul Ul £ =3 a ui z a: 240 225 210 195 180 165 BLDI — BLSF C C = .51 *^ 1 **^?V-_/ ^ITV I 1 5 10 15 20 DAT A POINTS 25 30 Figure 12 Intonation Patterns for Black English Declarative Informal (BLDI) versus Black English Specific Formal (BLSF) 255 _i <>- 240 I-o z z 225 u,ul 210 z:_> <O P 195 o ui SDi 180 =>u. u. 165 DAT A POINTS Figure 13 Intonation Patterns for Black English Declarative Formal (BLDF) versus Black English General Informal (BLGI) *C^* BLDF — BLGI 5 C C • -.31 10 15 20 25 30 72 sentence was level (Figure 14), whereas for the general question it was rising. The Initial Intonation contour for the declarative sentence was rising, while for the general question it was falling. The terminal Intonation contour was rising for the declarative sentence and level for the general question. BLSF versus BLGI The correlation coefficient between the specific question formal (BLSF) and general question Informal (BLGI) mean utterances of -.7034 Indicated that definite differences existed between Intonation patterns. The mean utterance intonation pattern for the specific question was falling (Figure 15), whereas for the general question it was rising. Each utterance has a falling initial intonation contour. The terminal Intonation contour for the specific question was rising while for the general question 1t was level. BLSI versus BLGF The correlation coefficient between the specific question informal (BLSI) and general question formal (BLGF) mean utterances of -.5194 Indicated that definite differences existed between intonation patterns. The mean utterance intonation pattern for the specific question was falling (Figure 16), whereas for the general question It was rising. The Initial Intonation contour for the specific question was rising while for the general question it was falling. The terminal Intonation contour was rising for the specific 73 _, 255 <cs- 240 z z 225 ui ui „ 210 <a r 195 a ui = <* 180 =3 U. u. 165 ^P^l^^yj BLDI BLGF ^» W^ * ^^rV*i r CC = -.15 1 5 10 15 20 DAT A POINTS 25 30 Figure 14 Intonation Patterns for Black English Declarative Informal (BLDI) versus Black English General Formal (BLGF) 255 165 CC « -.70 1 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS 20 25 30 Figure 15 Intonation Patterns for Black English Specific Formal (BLSF) versus Black English General Informal (BLGI) 74 255 —i <c^ 240 z z 225 Ul Ul z_> <z<=r o ui = <* 180 _>u_ ^ 165 210 195 v •*.-•'•-•%'•* • * .y^^-^ht^ BLSI BLG F C C » -.52 1 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS 20 25 30 Figure 16 Intonation Patterns for Black English Specific Informal (BLSI) versus Black English General Formal (BLGF) 75 question and level for the general question. Table 8 summarizes the correlation coefficients for Question Four. Table 8 Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Four - Black English Discussion Sentence and Situation DF DI DF DI i SF SI : : SI : SF : GI GF GI GF Correlation Coefficients .74 .51 -.31 -.14 -.70 -.52 The cultural expectation of different sentence intonation patterns was partially supported. The general question intonation patterns were definitely different than the Intonation patterns for either the specific question or declarative sentence. The Intonation patterns for the declarative formal and specific question informal utterances displayed little or no difference. This finding was not expected. Previous (Question Three) within situation comparisons Indicated that some but not definite differences existed between intonation patterns for these sentence types. This similarity 76 may be found only in Black English. Subsequent questions probe this possibility. Question Five: How do the Intonation patterns of Standard English differ for each sentence type and contrasting levels of formality? This question was posed to determine what effect situation manipulation had upon Standard English intonation patterns. The following Standard English mean utterances were compared to answer the question: declarative formal (STDF) versus declarative Informal (STDI), specific question formal (STSF) versus specific question Informal (STSI), and general question formal (STGF) versus general question Informal (STGF). STDF versus STDI For the declarative sentence mean utterance, the correlation coefficient between the formal (STDF) and Informal (STDI) situations of .7144 Indicated that little or no difference existed between intonation patterns. Each sentence was characterized by a falling mean utterance Intonation pattern and Initial Intonation contour (Figure 17). The formal utterance, however, did not begin a pitch drop until mid-utterance, whereas the Informal utterance pitch dropped over the entire utterance. Furthermore, the formal utterance displayed higher pitch levels than the Informal utterance from start to finish. 77 255 «=c>- Ul Ul _: _> o ui zac 240 225 210 195 180 165 V . STDF STDI -V~ « . I_W ••"•*. CC • ,.-• - .71 .'V 1 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS 20 25 30 Figure 17 Intonation Patterns for Standard English Declarative Formal (STDF) versus Standard English Declarative Informal (STDI) 78 STSF versus STSI For the specific question mean utterances, the correlation coefficient between the formal (STSF) and Informal (STSI) situations of .7846 indicated that little or no difference existed between intonation patterns. Each sentence was characterized by a falling mean utterance Intonation pattern and Initial Intonation contour (Figure 18). The fundamental frequency began dropping at data point 16 for each utterance. STGF versus STGI For the general question mean utterance, the correlation coefficient between formal (STGF) and Informal (STGI) situations of -.3039 indicated that definite differences existed between Intonation patterns. Although the two sentences were characterized by a level mean utterance Intonation pattern (Figure 19), only the formal utterance pitch was level from start to finish. The informal utterance pitch dropped to mid-utterance and then rose toward termination. Furthermore, the Informal utterance started and finished nearly thirty Hz above the formal utterance. Table 9 summarizes the correlation coefficients for Question Five. 79 255 <>- H-CJ Z Z UIUI S =3 a ui ZQ £ _>u. 240 225 210 195 180 165 W* 5 *^?**^ STSF — STSI " - C C = .78 v > 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 DAT A POINTS Figure 18 Intonation Patterns for Standard English Specific Formal (STSF) versus Standard English Specific Informal (STSI) 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 DAT A POINTS Figure 19 Intonation Patterns for Standard English General Formal (STGF) versus Standard English General Informal (STGI) Table 9 Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Five - Standard English Situation Sentence Formal : Informal Declarative .71 Specific .78 General -.30 Discussion The correlation coefficients indicated that manipulation of the formality of the speaking situation produced different intonation patterns for the Standard English general question mean utterance, but not for the declarative sentence or specific question mean utterances* A similar finding was noted for the Black English general question. It was concluded that the reading (formal) situation forced an 1ntonat1onal set on the subject but free discourse allowed him to exercise different attitudinal Intonation pattern combinations. The specific question, in this study, was used to gather Impersonal or unemotional types of Information and the declarative sentence was the Impersonal response to the-specific question, e.g.. Where do you live? I live at 37th Place. No evidence was found to alter this Interpretation. Question Six: How do the Intonation patterns of 81 Standard English differ for contrasting sentence types and for each level of formality? This question was posed to determine the relationship between the Intonation patterns for different sentence types while holding the speaking situation constant. The following Standard English mean utterances were compared to answer the question: declarative formal (STDF) versus specific question formal (STSF), declarative formal (STDF) versus general question formal (STGF), specific question formal (STSF) versus general question formal (STGF), declarative Informal (STDI) versus specific question informal (STSI), declarative Informal (STDI) versus general question informal (STGI), and specific question informal (STSI) versus general question Informal (STGI). STDF versus STSF For the formal situation, the correlation coefficient between the declarative (STDF) and specific question (STSF) mean utterances of .4743 Indicated that differences existed between the Intonation patterns. The mean utterance Intonation pattern and Initial intonation contour was falling for each sentence (Figure 20). The terminal and Initial intonation contours for both the declarative sentence and the specific question were falling. STDF versus STGF For the formal situation, the correlation coefficient between 82 1 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS Figure 20 Intonation Patterns for Standard English Declarative Formal (STDF) versus Standard English Specific Formal (STSF) 83 the declarative (STDF) and general question (STGF) mean utterances of .0549 indicated that definite differences existed between intonation patterns. The mean utterance Intonation pattern for the declarative sentence was falling, whereas for the general question 1t was level (Figure 21). The Initial and terminal Intonation contours were falling for each utterance. STSF versus STGF For the formal situation, the correlation coefficient between the specific question (STSF) and general question (STGF) mean utterances of .2849 indicated that differences existed between the intonation patterns. The mean utterance Intonation pattern for the specific question was falling, whereas for the general question 1t was level (Figure 22). Each utterance had falling Initial and terminal intonation contours. STDI versus STSI For the informal situation, the correlation coefficient between the declarative (STDI) and specific question (STSI) mean utterances of .5901 indicated that differences existed between the Intonation patterns. The mean utterance intonation pattern and Initial Intonation contour was falling for each sentence (Figure 23). The mean utterance terminal Intonation was rising for the declarative sentence and level for the specific question. STDI versus STGI For the informal situation, the correlation coefficient 84 255 <> - Z Z Ul Ul s: _i o ui zo e _ > u. 240 225 210 195 180 165 C C = .65 ^/V^A,/*^' • •, «.'*-.-/ STDF STGF 1 5 10 15 20 25 DAT A POINTS 30 Figure 21 Intonation Patterns for Standard English Declarative Formal (STDF) versus Standard English General Formal (STGF) <>• t- o z z Ul Ul _: _ > <c r a ui z _ -ii - C C = .28 1 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS 30 Figure 22 Intonation Patterns for Standard English Specific Formal (STSF) versus Standard English General Formal (STGF) 85 1 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS Figure 23 Intonation Patterns for Standard English Declarative Informal (STDI) versus Standard English Specific Informal (STSI) 86 between the declarative (STDI) and general question (STGI) mean utterances of -.4715 Indicated that definite differences existed between Intonation patterns. The mean utterance Intonation pattern for the declarative sentence was falling, whereas for the general question It was rising (Figure 24). Each utterance had falling Initial Intonation contours. The terminal Intonation contour was rising for the declarative sentence and falling for the general question. STSI versus STGI For the Informal situation, the correlation coefficient between the specific question (STSI) and general question (STGI) mean utterances of -.7295 Indicated that definite differences existed between Intonation patterns. The mean utterance intonation pattern for the specific question was falling, whereas for the general question It was rising (Figure 25). Each utterance had a falling initial intonation contour. The terminal intonation contour was level for the specific question and falling for the general question. Table 10 summarizes the correlation coefficients for Question Six. 87 255 240 <>- i— <-> Z2 : 225 /•#-•• • V ^_« . •-•»#• *•*•* ,**•'•-•** C C = .47,,.' # "\ •'•v' ,»•- • • 1 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS 25 30 Figure 24 Intonation Patterns for Standard English Declarative Informal (STDI) versus Standard English General Informal (STGI) 255 z z Ul Ul _:=> QU I zee _>u. 240 225 210 195 180 165 CC = -.73 ,.'*" # \ STSI STGI -- 1 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS 20 25 30 Figure 25 Intonation Patterns for Standard English Specific Informal (STSI) versus Standard English General Informal (STGI) 88 Table 10 Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Six - Standard English Situation Formal Informal D:S .47 .59 Sentences D:G .05 -.47 S:G .28 -.73 Discussion Cultural expectations (i.e., the Intonation pattern for a declarative sentence 1s different from the Intonation pattern for a general question) were supported. The correlation coefficients Indicated that the mean utterance intonation patterns were different for each sentence type. The strongest Inverse relationship was displayed between the general question and specific question informal utterances. The general question intonation patterns were, as in previous Questions Three and Four, much different than either the declarative sentence or specific question. Also, the specific question and declarative sentence displayed the strongest positive relationship. Question Seven: How do the Intonation patterns of Standard English differ for constrastlng sentence types and contrasting levels of formality? 89 This question was posed to determine if the relationship between the intonation patterns for different sentence types was affected by different situations. The following Standard English mean utterances were compared to answer this question: declarative formal (STDF) versus specific question Informal (STSI), declarative informal (STDI) versus specific question formal (STSF), declarative formal (STDF) versus general question informal (STGI), declarative Informal (STDI) versus general question formal (STGF), specific question formal (STSF) versus general question informal (STGI), and specific question informal (STSI) versus general question formal (STGF). STDF versus STSI The correlation coefficient between the declarative formal (STDF) and specific question Informal (STSI) mean utterances of .5779 indicated that differences existed between Intonation patterns. The mean utterance intonation pattern and the initial intonation contours were falling for each utterance (Figure 26). The terminal intonation contour was level for the specific question and falling for the declarative sentence utterance. Although the specific question began at the same fundamental frequency level as the declarative sentence, 1t finished nearly twelve Hz lower. Thus, the specific question displayed a steeper fundamental frequency drop, than the declarative sentence, over Its entire length. 90 —1 <>- »- o z z Ul Ul S =3 a ui z CC _> u. 255 240 225 210 195 180 165 CC = .58 "K STDF STSI V 1 5 TO 15 DAT A POINTS 20 25 30 Figure 26 Intonation Patterns for Standard English Declarative Formal (STDF) versus Standard English Specific Informal (STSI) 91 STDI versus STSF The correlation coefficient between the declarative Informal (STDI) and specific question formal (STSF) mean utterances of .5820 Indicated that differences existed between Intonation patterns. The mean utterance intonation pattern and initial Intonation contour were falling for each utterance (Figure 27). The terminal intonation contour was rising for the declarative sentence and falling for the specific question. Furthermore, the specific question began three Hz above the declarative sentence and finished eight Hz below. This Indicated a steeper fundamental frequency drop for the specific question than for the declarative sentence. STDF versus STGI The correlation coefficient between the declarative formal (STDF) and general question Informal (STGI) mean utterances of -.3513 Indicated that definite differences existed between intonation patterns. The mean utterance intonation pattern for the declarative sentence was falling, whereas for the general question it was rising (Figure 28). The initial and terminal Intonation contours were falling for each utterance. STDI versus STGF The correlation coefficient between the declarative Informal (STDI) and general question formal (STGF) mean utterances of -.0418 Indicated that definite differences existed between Intonation patterns. The mean utterance intonation pattern for the declarative 92 —1 < >- H- —> Z Z Ul Ul s: _> <o - a ui z a£ _> u. u. 265 240 225 210 195 180 165 #' ^> w »-»-*>»-^w > • •--^^^V' STDI STSF-- 5 10 C C = .58 \ * \ - * W m-\ ^ * ~^* r ^^V^x ^^ a 15 20 25 30 DATA POINTS Figure 27 Intonation Patterns for Standard English Declarative Informal (STDI) versus Standard English Specific Formal (STSF) 255 <c>- 240 \ z z Ul Ul •=co- QU I Z OS -JU . U . 225 210 195 180 165 STDF STGI 1 5 10 15 20 25 DATA POINTS 30 Figure 28 Intonation Patterns for Standard English Declarative Formal (STDF) versus Standard English General Informal (STGI) 93 sentence was falling, whereas for the general question 1t was rising (Figure 29). The initial and terminal intonation contours for the general question were falling. The declarative sentence initial Intonation contour was falling and the terminal Intonation contour was rising. STSF versus STGI The correlation coefficient between the specific question formal (STSF) and general question Informal (STGI) mean utterances of -.7812 Indicated that definite differences existed between Intonation patterns. The mean utterance intonation pattern for the specific question was falling, whereas for the general question it was rising (Figure 30). Each utterance had a falling initial intonation contour. The terminal Intonation contour was rising for the specific question and falling for the general question. STSI versus STGF The correlation coefficient between the specific question Informal (STSI) and general question formal (STGF) mean utterances of .3418 Indicated that differences existed between Intonation patterns. The mean utterances Intonation pattern for the specific question was falling, whereas for the general question it was level (Figure 31). Each utterance had a falling Initial Intonation contour. The terminal intonation contour was rising for the specific question and falling for the general question. Table 11 summarizes the correlation coefficients for Question Seven. 94 255 =3 U. 165 C C = -.04 STDI STGF T 5 10 15 20 DAT A POINTS 25 30 Figure 29 Intonation Patterns for Standard English Declarative Informal (STDI) versus Standard English General Formal (STGF) E N T A L E N C Y z _? U N D A F R E Q u. 255 240 225 210 195 180 •tec STSF STGI *v**** CC = -.78 ,»'\ 1 5 10 15 20 DAT A POINTS 25 30 Figure 30 Intonation Patterns for Standard English Specific Formal (STSF) versus Standard English General Informal (STGI) 95 _, 255 1Z 240 2 = 210 QU I 195 " 180 =»u. "• 165 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 DAT A POINTS Figure 31 Intonation Patterns for Standard English Specific Informal (STSI) versus Standard English General Formal (STGF) CC = .34 96 Table 11 Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Seven - Standard English Discussion Sentence and Situation DF DI DF DI SF SI : i SI : SF • GI GF GI GF Correlation Coefficients .57 .58 -.35 -.04 -.78 .34 The cultural expectation of different sentence Intonation patterns was supported. The correlation coefficients indicated that the mean utterance Intonation patterns were different for each sentence type and situation. Question Three, Four and Six reported a similar Inverse relationship between the specific and general question utterances. The finding In Question Four that the Black English declarative formal and specific question Informal utterance Intonation patterns had little or no difference was not supported for the same Standard English utterance comparison. This may indicate an Intonation pattern similarity peculiar to Black English. Subsequent questions explore this possibility. 97 Question Eight: How do the Intonation patterns of Black English differ from the intonation patterns of Standard English for each sentence type and each level of formality? This question was posed to determine what relationships existed between the Intonation patterns of Black and Standard English for each sentence type while holding the speaking situation constant. The following Black and Standard English mean utterances were compared for declarative sentences: Black English formal (BLDF) versus Standard English formal (STDF), and Black English Informal (BLDI) versus Standard English Informal (STDI); for specific question: Black English formal (BLSF) versus Standard English formal (STSF) and Black English Informal (BLSI) versus Standard English Informal (STSI); for general question: Black English formal (BLGF) versus Standard English formal (STGF) and Black English informal (BLGI) versus Standard English Informal (STGI). BLDF versus STDF For the declarative sentence mean utterance, the correlation coefficient between Black (BLDF) and Standard (STDF) English dialects of .6762 Indicated that differences existed between Intonation patterns. Both sentences were characterized by falling mean utterance Intonation patterns. This fundamental frequency drop commenced at data point 22 (Figure 32). The BLDF utterance was < C D — T I/I C (A to rt O 3 OL. C O -* Q. m SO —• —» 01 -»• O 5~ 3 rt- O 3 0> rt- 01 rt rt ro i o co F U N D A M F R E Q U T A L C Y ro ro ro ro 4* en en o en to 3 - O ro o Q> B> rt < ro o O) to ~-i o 3 o ro o O) -J 01 rt < ro ca c ro to ro CO r- o U3 CO 99 approximately twenty Hz lower than the STDF utterance from data point 2 through 30 (termination). This is four Hz greater than the sixteen Hz difference between the Black and Standard English mean fundamental frequency levels. The terminal intonation contour was rising for the Black English utterance and falling for the Standard English utterance. BLDI versus STDI For the declarative sentence mean utterances, the correlation coefficient between Black (BLDI) and Standard (STDI) English dialects of .4827 indicated that differences existed between intonation patterns. The BLDI mean utterance was characterized by a level Intonation pattern, whereas the STDI mean utterance was characterized by a falling Intonation pattern (Figure 33). Further more, although the STDI utterance began over thirty Hz higher than the BLDI utterance it terminated four Hz below the BLDI level. The initial and terminal intonation contours were rising for the Black English utterance. The Initial Intonation contour for Standard English was falling, while the terminal Intonation contour was rising. BLSF versus STSF For the specific question mean utterances, the correlation coefficient between Black (BLSF) and Standard (STSF) English dialects of .6355 indicated that differences existed between intonation patterns. Each sentence was characterized by a falling mean utterance intonation pattern (Figure 34). The STSF utterance was approximately 100 _, 255 < ^ 240 z z 225 Ul Ul =_=, 210 <* cr ex ui = os 180 — I u. "- 165 C C = .48 v.^ BLDI STDI 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS 20 25 30 Figure 33 Intonation Patterns for Black English Declarative Informal (BLDI) versus Standard English Declarative Informal (STDI) 255 C C = .64 v\ » ^ X? 1 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS 25 30 Figure 34 Intonation Patterns for Black English Specific Formal (BLSF) versus Standard English Specific Formal (STSF) 101 twenty-two Hz above the BLSF utterance at data point 1 but finished at essentially the same level, Indicating a much steeper drop. Each utterance had a falling Initial intonation contour. The terminal intonation contour was rising for the Black English utterance and falling for the Standard English utterance. BLSI versus STSI For the specific question mean utterances, the correlation coefficient between Black (BLSI) and Standard (STSI) English dialects of .8730 indicated little or no difference existed between Intonation patterns. Each sentence was characterized by a falling mean utterance Intonation pattern (Figure 35). However, the STSI utterance pitch was approximately fifteen Hz higher (the average difference between B1 and St was sixteen Hz) than the BLSI pitch levels. The Initial and terminal Intonation contours were rising for the Black English utterance. The Standard English utterance had a falling initial Intonation contour and a level terminal Intonation contour. BLGF versus STGF For the general question mean utterances, the correlation coefficient between Black (BLGF) and Standard (STGF) English dialects of -.3370 indicated that definite differences existed between Intonation patterns. The mean utterance Intonation for the Black English sentence was rising, whereas for the Standard English sentence it was level (Figure 36). The BLGF utterance maintained -• 255 •SO - H-O 240 ==* 225 Ul Ul " 210 QU I 195 Z C_ =,u. 180 u. 165 v>_£r££j BLSI STSI •> * C C '^• v •"•\ = .87 1 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS 20 25 30 Figure 35 Intonation Patterns for Black English Specific Informal (BLSI) versus Standard English Specific Informal (STSI) -i 255 *>- 240 o Z^ 225 S _I 210 Z* 180 u. u. 165 CC «= -.34 ..yv---s.^.'-"• VV V V . s\ BLGF STGF 1 5 10 15 20 25 DAT A POINTS Figure 36 Intonation Patterns for Black English General Formal (BLGF) versus Standard English General Formal (STGF) 30 103 a smoother Intonation pattern than the STGF utterance, which at times was an almost sinusoidal pattern. The Initial and terminal intonation contours for the Standard English utterance were falling. The Black English utterance had a falling Initial Intonation contour and a level terminal intonation contour. BLGI versus STGI For the general question mean utterances, the correlation coefficient between Black (BLGI) and Standard (STGI) dialects of .5264 Indicated that differences existed between intonation patterns. Each sentence was characterized by a rising mean utterance Intonation pattern (Figure 37). The STGI utterance was approximately thirty Hz above the BLGI utterance. The Initial and terminal Intonation contours for the Standard English utterance were falling. The Black English utterance had a falling initial intonation contour and a level terminal intonation contour. Table 12 summarizes the correlation coefficients of Question Eight. Table 12 Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Eight Black English versus Standard English Situation Sentence Formal Informal Declarative .67 .48 Specific .63 .87 General -.34 .53 104 N T A L N C Y UJLU _:_ > Q Ul zee U. 255 240 225 210 195 180 165 > \ \ • C C .53 # x*"% BLGI STGI — 1 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS 20 25 30 Figure 37 Intonation Patterns for Black English General Informal (BLGI) versus Standard English General Informal (STGI) 105 Discussion The correlation coefficients indicated that intonation pattern differences existed between Standard and Black English for all utterances except between BLSI and STSI. A review of previous findings indicated that the situation changes did not alter the Intonation patterns for the specific question in either dialect. It seems likely that the specific question Intonation pattern is similar for both reading and free discourse. Evidently, the use of the Interrogative word to begin a specific question identifies 1t as a question and not a statement. The definite difference between the Intonation patterns of the general question formal utterances, apparently, reflected the difference 1n reading performance between dialect groups. The Black English utterance Intonation curve displayed a very exaggerated mid-utterance drop and subsequent rise toward finish. This pronounced pitch rise was interpreted as a reaction to traditional reading Intonation patterns, I.e., questions require a raised pitch at the end. Question Nine: How do the Intonation patterns of Black English differ from the intonation patterns of Standard English for each sentence and for contrasting levels of formality? This question was posed to determine what relationship exists between the intonation patterns of Black and Standard English for 106 each sentence type when manipulating the levels of formality. The following Black and Standard English mean utterances were compared for declarative sentences: Black English formal (BLDF) versus Standard English informal (STDI), and Black English informal (BLDI) versus Standard English formal (STDF); for specific questions: Black English formal (BLSF) versus Standard English Informal (STSI), and Black English Informal (BLSI) versus Standard English formal (STSF); for general questions: Black English formal (BLGF) versus Standard English Informal (STGI) and Black English informal (BLGI) versus Standard English formal (STGF). BLDF versus STDI For the declarative sentence mean utterances, the correlation coefficient between Black English formal (BLDF) and Standard English informal (STDI) of .6739 Indicated that differences existed between intonation patterns. Each utterance was characterized by a falling mean utterance intonation pattern (Figure 38). The STDI utterance curve was slightly steeper, beginning thirteen Hz higher but finishing only eight Hz higher than the BLDF utterance. Each utterance has a falling Initial intonation contour. The terminal Intonation contour was rising for each utterance. BLDI versus STDF For the declarative sentence mean utterances, the correlation coefficient between Black English Informal (BLDI) and Standard English formal (STDF) of .4201 indicated that differences existed between _1 1- o D A M E N E Q U E N Z CC _» u. u. 2bb 240 225 210 195 180 IKK V 3~*_ ^>\ BLDF STDI CC = .67 K #v 1 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS 20 25 30 Figure 38 Intonation Patterns for Black English Declarative Formal (BLDF) versus Standard English Declarative Informal (STDI) 108 intonation patterns. The BLDI sentence was characterized by a level mean utterance Intonation pattern, whereas the STDF was characterized by a falling mean utterance intonation pattern (Figure 39). The STDF utterance began thirty-six Hz higher than the BLDI utterance but finished only fourteen Hz higher indicating Its falling pattern (the average difference between Bl and St was sixteen Hz). The Initial and terminal Intonation contours were rising for the Black English utterance. The Standard English utterance had falling initial and terminal Intonation contours. BLSF versus STSI For the specific question mean utterance, the correlation coefficient between Black English formal (BLSF) and Standard English Informal (STSI) of .8412 Indicated that little or no difference existed between intonation patterns. Each sentence was characterized by a falling mean utterance Intonation pattern (Figure 40). The STSI utterance was approximately fifteen Hz higher than the BLSF utterance. The terminal Intonation contour was rising for the Black English utterance and level for the Standard English utterance. Each utterance had a falling initial intonation contour. BLSI versus STSF For the specific question mean utterance, the correlation coefficient between Black English Informal (BLSI) and Standard English formal (STSF) of .6745 Indicated that differences existed between Intonation patterns. Each sentence was characterized by a falling 109 - 1 t- O z z Ul Ul <tcr Q Ul Z £_ 3U . u. 255 240 225 210 195 180 165 Figure 39 Intonation Patterns for Black English Declarative Informal (BLDI) versus Standard English Declarative Formal (STDF) — J <>• l- O z z Ul Ul S 3 «* o- QU I zee _>U- U. 255 240 225 210 195 180 165 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 DAT A POINTS Figure 40 Intonation Patterns for Black English Specific Formal (BLSF) versus Standard English Specific Informal (STSI) BLDI — STDF — /• ^ V** " •• 0 C C « # N .42 S 1 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS 20 25 30 CC = .84 no mean utterance Intonation pattern (Figure 41). However, the STSF utterance maintained at least a twenty Hz higher pitch level than the BLSI utterance from data point 1 through 27. The average difference between Black and Standard English was sixteen Hz. Between data point 27 and termination the pitch difference dropped to ten Hz. The initial and terminal contours for the Black English utterance were rising and for the Standard English utterance were falling. BLGF versus STGI For the general question mean utterances, the correlation coefficient between Black English formal (BLGF) and Standard English informal (STGI) of .6491 indicated that differences existed between intonation patterns. Each sentence was characterized by a rising mean utterance Intonation pattern (Figure 42). However, the BLGF utterance pitch ranged only twelve Hz, while the STGI utterance pitch ranged over twenty-nine Hz. The Initial and terminal intonation contour for the Standard English utterance were falling. The Black English utterance had a rising initial intonation contour and a level terminal intonation contour. BLGI versus STGF For the general question mean utterances, the correlation coefficient between Black English informal (BLGI) and Standard English formal (STGF) of -.2524 Indicated that definite differences existed between intonation patterns. BLGI was characterized by a rising mean utterance Intonation pattern, whereas STGF was Il l _ 1 1 — O z z Ul Ul s: =J <o - Q Ul Z CC _>U v U. Zbb 240 225 210 195 180 i£t; . C C = .67 0 « V-^.—. , /' V V V \ . /*-+-**+***<•-L+ • ^ . i^~*^ 1 V*'A * » •S-V*" * *"%•_ v ^W-* BLSI — %__ \ STS F — >, 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 DATA POINTS Figure 41 Intonation Patterns for Black English Specific Informal (BLSI) versus Standard English Specific Formal (STSF) ~" 255 *- <-> 240 V sz uiui 225 " 210 165 #•*»#- » s >-W ' N ...,N—-" V CC = .65.^«~ # \ BLGF — STGI 1 5 10 15 DATA POINTS 20 25 30 Figure 42 Intonation Patterns for Black English General Formal (BLGF) versus Standard English General Informal (STGI) 112 characterized by a level mean utterance Intonation pattern (Figure 43). The BLGI utterance pitch ranged approximately thirty Hz and finished about five Hz above Its starting pitch level. The STGF utterance pitch remained relatively level from start to finish ranging only fifteen Hz. Each utterance had a falling Initial Intonation contour. The terminal intonation contour was level for the Black English utterance and falling for the Standard English utterance. Table 13 summarizes the correlation coefficients for Question Nine. Table 13 Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Nine Black English versus Standard English Dialect and Situation Sentence BLI : STF BLF : STI Declarative .42 .67 Specific .67 .84 General -.25 .65 Discussion The correlation coefficients Indicated that intonation pattern differences existed between Standard and Black English for all utterances except between BLSF and STSI. The same correlation trend was manifested in Question Eight. For that question, all intonation 113 _, 255 <>- 240 f- o z z 225 ui ui 210 — > u, 165 C C = -.25 A BLGI STGF— 5 10 15 20 25 30 DAT A POINTS Figure 43 Intonation Patterns for Black English General Informal (BLGI) versus Standard English General Formal (STGF) 114 comparisons indicated different patterns except between BLSI and STSI. It 1s likely that the Black English specific question formal and Informal mean utterances closely approximate the Standard English Informal utterance. Table 6 Indicated a corre lation coefficient of .78 between the Standard English specific question formal and Informal mean utterances. Table 14 summarizes the correlation coefficients for the specific question 1n a trend form. Table 14 Trend of Correlation Coefficients for the Specific Question Mean Utterance Dialect & Dialect & Situation CC Comparison Situation CC BLF _I .92 ESS^IS,,. STF 3T1 .78 BLF STF .63 BgT.ffilS*, BL1 S " •" BLF STI .84 SSSilSS,,, BLI STF .67 It can be seen In both columns of Table 14 that Standard English Informal has definite similarities with Black English formal and Informal. Evidently, the Black English specific question intonation patterns are slightly different from the Standard English reading style Intonation pattern for specific questions. A trend analysis for the general question mean utterances Indicated that Standard English informal was more similar to Black 115 English formal and Informal than 1t was to Standard English formal. However, the correlation coefficients for the general questions never Indicated definite similarity between mean utterance Intonation patterns. Question Ten: How do the Intonation patterns of Black English differ from the Intonation patterns of Standard English for contrasting sentence types and for each level of formality? This question was posed to determine what relationship existed between the Intonation patterns of Black and Standard English for different sentence types while holding the speaking situation constant. The following Black and Standard English mean utterances were compared for the formal situation: Black English declarative (BLDF) versus Standard English specific question (STSF), Black English declarative (BLDF) versus Standard English general question (STGF), Black English specific question (BLSF) versus Standard English declarative (STDF), Black English specific question (BLSF) versus Standard English general question (STGF), Black English general question (BLGF) versus Standard English declarative (STDF), and Black English general question (BLGF) versus Standard English specific question (STSF); for the Informal situation: Black English declarative (BLDI) versus Standard English specific question (STSI), 116 Black English declarative (BLDI) versus Standard English general question (STGI), Black English specific question (BLSI) versus Standard English declarative (STDI), Black English specific question (BLSI) versus Standard English general question (STGI), Black English general question (BLGI) versus Standard English declarative (STDI) and Black English general question (BLGI) versus Standard English specific question (STSI). Table 15 summarizes all correlaton coefficients for Question Ten. Table 15 Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Ten Black English versus Standard English Dialect & Situation Sentence Formal Informal BLD BLD BLS BLS BLG BLG : STS : STG ; STD • STG • STD STS .71 -.03 .71 .18 -.32 -.47 .67 -.66 .73 -.64 -.14 -.49 Discussion The correlation coefficients Indicated that differences 117 existed between Black and Standard English Intonation patterns for all contrasting sentence type mean utterances, except between the declarative and specific question mean utterances. It was previously noted 1n Questions Three, Four, Six and Seven that the greatest similarity between Intonation patterns for contrasting sentences was found when comparing the specific question and declarative sentence mean utterances. This finding was similarly noted In this question. All sentence comparisons with the general question mean utterances, Including the comparisons of this question. Indicated definite Intonation pattern differences. Figure 44 displays the Intonation patterns for BLSI and STDI, the highest positive correlation coefficient. Figure 45 displays the intonation patterns for BLDI and STGI, which had the highest negative correlation coefficient. Question Eleven: How do the Intonation patterns of Black English differ from the Intonation patterns of Standard English for contrasting sentence types and for contrasting levels of formality? This question was posed to determine what relationship exists between the intonation patterns of Black and Standard English for contrasting sentence types and contrasting levels of formality. The following Black and Standard English mean utterances were 118 _i 255 <a - 240 h- O Ul Ul 225 C C = .73 v.. 1 5 10 15 20 DAT A POINTS 25 30 Figure 44 Intonation Patterns for Black English Specific Informal (BLSI) versus Standard English Declarative Informal (STDI) 255 240 <c>- h-o " 225 Ul Ul s=> 210 <o - QU I 195 Z CC _> ti ll . 180 165 C C - ..4§/"\ ( BLDI STGI 1 5 10 15 20 DAT A POINTS 25 30 Figure 45 Intonation Patterns for Black English Declarative Informal (BLDI) versus Standard English General Informal (STGI) 119 compared: declarative formal versus specific question Informal (BLDF versus STSI, STDF versus BLDI), declarative Informal versus specific question formal (BLDI versus STSF, STDI versus BLSF), declarative formal versus general question Informal (BLDF versus STGI, STDF versus BLGI), declarative informal versus general question formal (BLDI versus STGF, STDI versus BLGF), specific question formal versus general question Informal (BLSF versus STGI, STSF versus 8LGI), specific question informal versus general question formal (BLSI versus STGF, STSI versus BLGF). Table 16 summarizes the correlation coefficients for Question Eleven. Table 16 Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Question Eleven Black English versus Standard English Dialect, Situation and Sentence BLDF BLDI BLDF BLDI BLSF . BLSI . BLSF : BLSI BLGF : BLGI : BLGF : BLGI : : STSI : STSF : STGI • STGF • STDI STDF STGI STGF STDI STDF STSI STSF Correlation Coefficients .68 .65 -.50 .07 .69 .70 -.70 .09 -.15 -.50 -.57 -.35 Discussion The correlation coefficients indicated that differences 120 between Black and Standard English intonation patterns existed for all contrasting sentence type and situation mean utterances. The cultural expectation of different sentence Intonation patterns was supported for all comparisons except BLSI to STDF. The correlation coefficients for the comparisons between the declarative and specific question Intonation patterns Indicated, as 1n previous questions, only minimal differences. Actually the correlation coefficients for these sentence types was higher for the between dialect comparisons than for the within dialect comparisons. The general question mean utterance Intonation patterns were definitely different than either the specific question or declarative sentence mean utterance intonation patterns. Figure 46 displays the intonation patterns for BLSI and STDF, the highest positive correlation. Figure 47 displays the intonation patterns for BLGF and STSI, the highest negative correlation. SECONDARY FINDINGS Fundamental Frequency Level Comparison The Standard English speakers maintained a higher fundamental frequency overall for all utterances. The ST Hz level equalled or dropped slightly below the BL Hz level for only the declarative sentence informal utterances and specific question formal utterances. The maximum fundamental frequency drop below BL for these utterances was five Hz. Generally, the ST fundamental frequency was ten to twenty-five Hz above the BL pitch level. 121 —1 <> - I — o z z Ul Ul s:_> <c y Q Ul z e_ _»u. u. 255 240 225 210 195 180 165 K/ * BLSI STDF 5 •'V^ 10 C C » / \ 15 20 = .70 25 •-*-*•» , 30 DAT A POINTS Figure 46 Intonation Patterns for Black English Specific Informal (BLSI) versus Standard English Declarative Formal (STDF) 255 240 H- O z s 225 Ul Ul = => 210 ZZ 195 Z T 180 — J u. 165 BLGF STSI - - 1 5 10 15 DAT A POINTS 20 25 30 Figure 47 Intonation Patterns for Black English General Formal (BLGF) versus Standard English Specific Informal (STSI) 122 Table 17 shows the average fundamental frequency for each mean utterance. Table 17 Average Fundamental Frequency (Hz) For Each Mean Utterance Dialect and Situation Black "*"* Standard """ Sentence Formal Informal Formal Informal Declarative 202 198 226 207 Specific 207 208 221 218 General 201 207 215 233 Table 18 shows the average fundamental frequency according to situation and dialect with sentence type combined. Table 18 Average Fundamental Frequency (Hz) For Each Situation and Dialect BLF BLI STF STI — 203 204 221 219 Table 19 shows the average fundamental frequency according to dialect for all utterances combined. Table 19 Average Fundamental Frequency (Hz) For Each Dialect Fundamental Dialect Frequency (Hz) Black 204 Standard 220 Discussion of Fundamental Frequency Level Comparison Standard English was characterized by higher pitch levels than Black English for all utterances. The use of falsetto by Black English speakers, reported in the Tarone study, was not found in this study. Quite possibly the higher Standard English pitch levels may be the results of varying maturation rates between the sampled groups. Fundamental Frequency Range The fundamental frequency ranges varied from a maximum of fifty-six Hz for the STSF mean utterance to a minimum of thirteen Hz for the BLGF mean utterance. Table 20 provides a comparison of all mean utterance, their maximum and minimum pitch (Hz) and the resultant Hz differences. Discussion of Fundamental Frequency Range A comparison of the pitch range Indicated that for both dialects the general question formal situation pitch range was only 124 Table 20 Fundamental Frequency (Hz) Range for Each Mean Utterance Utterance Code BLDF BLDI STDF STDI BLSF BLSI STSF STSI BLGF BLGI STGF STGI Maximum Pitch 217.93 204.21 242.88 230.05 225.90 219.50 242.11 228.02 209.17 222.05 223.07 250.56 Minimum Pitch 179.38 186.38 211.85 189.79 178.40 173.83 186.59 189.83 196.42 192.70 208.40 221.20 Change 38 18 31 41 47 46 56 37 13 30 15 29 half that of the Informal situation. This further supports the notion of a subdued reading Intonation pattern set. The free discourse situation allowed the subject to select from many different intonation patterns which may be used in expressing a general question. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS This study compared the Intonation patterns of Black and Standard English speaking children In reading (F) and free discourse (I) situations for three sentence types (S, G, D). Speech samples were gathered from thirty Black and thirty Standard English speaking male students from junior high schools located in two distinct socioeconomic areas of Los Angeles County. Taped utterances v/ere reduced to fundamental frequency pitch patterns by a computer pitch extraction routine. After applying an appropriate raw data preparation scheme, mean data point curves and correlation coefficients were calculated between each dialect (Black or Standard English), sentence type (declarative, general or specific questions), and situation (formal or Informal) for each utterance. 1 p The studies of Loman and Tarone argued that there 1s a difference between Black and Standard English intonation patterns. Furthermore, the similarity of their research findings, together with the difference between their study designs implies that Black English intonation patterns may not be subject to situation stylistic Bengt Loman, "Intonation Patterns in a Negro American Dialect: A Preliminary Report" (unpublished study, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C., 1967). 2 Elaine Tarone, "Aspects of Intonation In Vernacular White and Black English Speech" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Washington, 1972). 126 127 variations. If this argument is correct, then the intonation patterns of Black English speakers should be different than the Intonation patterns of Standard English speakers and should not be altered by situation manipulation. Extending this argument, 1t seemed reasonable to conjecture that intonation patterns, regardless of dialect, may not be affected by situation changes. Cultural standardization of such patterns could demand that they remain Intact in all situations for meaningful message conveyance. The findings of this study Indicate the following: (1) Black English Intonation patterns are different from Standard English intonation patterns for all sentence types and situations, except the specific question Informal situation. (2) Black English displayed more level or rising terminal intonation contours than Standard English. (3) Black English displayed more rising initial intonation contours than Standard English. (4) Situation manipulation produced different Intonation patterns for the Black English declarative sentence and general question mean utterance, but not for the specific question mean utterance. (5) Situation manipulation produced different intonation patterns for the Standard English general question mean utterance, but not for the specific question or declarative sentence mean utterance. (6) Standard English speakers maintained a higher pitch level than Black English speakers. 128 Conclusions The findings of this study indicate that Black English Intonation patterns are different from Standard English Intonation patterns. Furthermore, the findings 1n regard to Black English terminal Intonation contours, are compatible with the findings of the Loman and Tarone studies (Table 2) . The hypothetical research extension offered by this researcher, regarding the similarity of Black English Intonation patterns 1n different situations modeled 1n previous studies, was not wholly supported. Situation manipulation produced different Intonation patterns for the Black English general question and declarative sentence mean utterances but not for the specific question mean utterances. However, only the Standard English general question mean utterances displayed differences between situations. This Indicated that Standard English speakers did not alter Intonation patterns for declarative sentences and specific questions between reading and Informal discourse. Implying that the Standard English speaker uses the same Intonation patterns for reading and Informal discourse situations, whereas the Black English speaker by changing Intonation patterns differentiates between reading and free discourse situations. Intonation seems to be more "communicatively salient" 1n Black English than in Standard English. 129 Theoretic Implications Labov noted that, "There are no single style speakers. By this we mean that every speaker will show some variation 1n phonological and syntactic rules according to the immediate context in which he is speaking." For example, the proportion of the non standard variant for th used by working class subjects decreased from 70% to 30% and by upper-middle class subjects decreased from 10% to 5% as the speaking situation changed from casual to reading styles. Regular phonological and syntactic style shifting occurs in all social class levels; however, such style shifts are more pronounced in lov/er working class groups. This finding, situation stylistic variation, has proven to be Invaluable for sociolinguistic research. Many studies have supported situation stylistic variation but none have attempted to extend it. This study manipulated the situation and social class variables crucial to such stylistic changes. It did not focus on segmental alterations but dealt with one suprasegmental feature; Intonation. Since this study added suprasegmentals to the situation stylistic variation rule, it was only necessary to report how intonation patterns changed as the situation was manipulated. The addition of another speech feature to this theoretical position, that speaking style changes as the William Labov, The Study of Nonstandard English (Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1970), p. 19. 5 Ib1d., p. 23. 130 situation changes, provided information which served to reestablish the limits of this rule. It was found that situation manipulation did produce different Intonation patterns for the general question utterances for both dialects but not for the Standard English declarative and specific question utterances. Apparently, the emotional freedom offered by the informal situation was responsible for the different general question Intonation patterns. This relaxation 1n style was also manifested in the segmental sociolinguistic studies by an increase in the usage of nonstandard features. It was difficult to determine the reason why the situation manipulation did not appreciably alter the Intonation patterns of the specific question utterances. Two possible explanations may be offered for this finding: (1) the study design imposed an impersonal level of interaction between subjects for these two sentence types. The usual type of information exchanged by a specific question for both situations focused on gathering a descriptive profile, I.e., Where do you live?, I live at 37th Place. Whereas, because of role playing, the general question sentences tended to be emotionally charged 1n the informal situation, i.e., DID YOU do this? or (2) situation manipulation does not produce changes in the intonation patterns of specific questions. The intonation patterns of such sentence types remain essentially the same Independent of situation. Cultural standardization of Intonation patterns 1s required for effective message translation. 131 This study presented findings which imply that differences between speaking situations produce dissimilar Intonation patterns for general questions. Dialectal differences for all sentence mean utterances except the specific question informal mean utterances were found. This finding v/as not substantially different than that reported in segmental research. Such studies reported that social class differences produced nonstandard segmental feature usage differences, i.e., lower working class subjects used more nonstandard features than upper-middle class subjects. Practical Implications What does the teacher of black children have to know? How is she to be trained? First, a teacher who wishes to work with language and speech programs for black children must receive training concerning language. What is language? What are dialects? How do social factors influence language and language learning? What are the functions of a language? What is the relationship of spoken language to written language and reading? Second, she needs specific training in learning the child's vernacular. What is his language like? More specifically, she should learn the dialect. I believe that In the process of learning the dialect the teacher will develop a greater respect for what 1t 1s she 1s asking of her children and what the difficulties are 1n learning another system, especially one which 1n many ways 1s superficially comparable to standard English, the dialect that she speaks. In addition, in learning the non standard dialect, the teacher will understand that one can learn another dialect of English without "changing" or "improving" the dialect that one already speaks. 6 "Joan Baratz, "Who Should Do What to Whom. . . and Why?" Linguistic-Cultural Differences in Education (Miami: The Florida Fl Reporter, Spring/Summer, 1969j, p. 77. 132 As previously noted, a necessary ingredient for effective interpersonal communication is a common understanding of the linguistic code between speaker and receiver. A reduction in the knowledge of this code will result in a corresponding reduction in the effectiveness of the communicative transaction. The more serious problem, however, lies not with a reduction 1n communication but in the increase 1n the probability of miscommunication. It is for this reason that a teacher of Black English speaking children must learn the dialect. Knowledge of intonation patterns which might be peculiar to Black English will provide a more thorough profile of the dialect. The findings of this study indicated that the intonation patterns for the declarative sentence, and general question varied between dialects. Furthermore, when isolated portions of the intonation pattern, such as Initial or terminal contours, were considered, differences existed. Black English speakers did use more level and rising terminal Intonation contours than Standard English speakers. This Information could be used to produce a more comprehensive second language program. Suggestions for Future Research The research of other suprasegmentals, their dialectal patterns, attitudinal messages, and contextual variations remain to be tackled. This study manipulated only tv/o situation variables, many different situation manipulations may be made. Validation of descriptive Black English intonation findings remain to be done. A suggested approach would be to synthesize the utterance findings of this study for presentation to audiences. The question of individual intonation pattern perception requires investigation. Research 1s presently being conducted to determine pitch recognition levels; however, such studies focus on threshold responses measured in acoustic laboratories. It is important to determine pitch recognition levels In a real world (field) situation. The intonation patterns of other dialects remain to be explained. APPENDICES 134 APPENDIX A SCRIPT 135 136 SCRIPT Bill: Well Mr. Chamberlain that was a pretty good game. W1lt: Why thanks Mr. Russell, for that I'll let you call me Wilt. Bill: That's nice of you Wilt, but, don't let it go to your head. You do know that a good game for you would be a fair game for me. W1lt: What do you mean by that? Bill: Man, don't you know what I mean? Wilt: Mo, I don't know, so tell me. Bill: Ok, ok. It's this way, I was the best center ever to play the game of basketball and . . . W1lt: Wait a minute. That's what you think but not what I think. Bill: Man you're kidding aren't you? W1lt: No I'm not. Who holds all the records? Bill: Who? W1lt: Me of course. Bill: Well maybe so but you didn't have them when I was playing ball. Wilt: What about that one game I scored a hundred points? Bill: Oh yeah, I remember that time. Weren't you playing against a little boys team? 137 Wilt: No man, 1t was against the Knicks and is in the official records. At least my records are In the books. Bill: Sure they are but as I said only one got in v/hen I was still playing ball. Wilt: Hey man, aren't you suppose to be interviewing me? Bill: Oh, ok, I guess I am. Let's see what did you do tonight? You scored 20 points, blocked 11 shots, and got 19 rebounds. Pretty fair night, as a matter of fact for you it was a great night. Tell me Wilt was this the best night you ever had? Wilt: Not really the best, but maybe one of the better games. Bill: I can't remember any better. Wilt: That's because you're so old that you forget things quickly. Bill: Ha! Hal You know Wilt, that's the first time you ever scored against me. Wilt: There you go again, do you want to interview me or talk about yourself? Bill: I must admit that talking about myself would be more fun, however, the show must go on. I shall make this a fine Interview. When you are out there with West and Goodrich do you call any plays? Wilt: No, Jerry calls all of the plays when we run them. Vie don't use too many plays though, because we like to run and play free ball. 138 Bill: You mean that the Lakers like to run fast breaks and move the ball around a lot? W1lt: Yeah, 1f we don't we get beat. When you played ball you liked to do that too didn't you? Bill: Yes, I found that type of ball the most fun to play as well as watch. Wilt: True, true. Bill: How many years do you plan to play? Wilt: As long as I'm the best in the league, I see no reason to stop playing. Bill: If you are only playing because you are the best, then why didn't you quit when I v/as playing ball? Wilt: Ha! Ha! I told you before that so long as no one was better, I would play ball. Bill: You know, Wilt, I have seen you play some very bad games. Funny thing 1s that most of them were when you played me. I guess that your luck doesn't help when I'm around. Wilt: There you go again with one of your own ideas. You know that all the fans think that I'm the best player that basketball ever had. Bill: What fans? W1H: You know what fans. Bill: No, I don't, tell me. Wilt: No sense in carrying this on any more. See you later old man. 139 Bill: Old man! I'll show you how old! You know that one-on-one game? I want you! How about it? Wilt: No, I don't want to be accused of whipping an old man. Bill: Afraid? Wilt: Me? Never! Bill: Well, when you feel strong enough let me know and I'll get a court. You bring the ball so there won't be any crying that It's slick. W1lt: Rest easy old man, before I accept your challenge. You don't want that to happen, do you? Bill: Oh man, do I ever want it to happen. Good thing for you that It's time to close this place up. See ya gang! i APPENDIX B SAMPLE TABULAR PRINTOUT 140 *** A-MRTRIX *** 141 SRMPLE#216 BSIZE= 2000 LBLOX= 7 LMIL= 3000 SPKR = 14066 SESS- 1 FTYPE= 321 PFILE= 300 RMIL= 0 POSP= 1108 NEGP= -1288 VBVER= 5 MRTHV= 0 SEGV= 0 RECV= 0 SMUV= 0 *** ACOUSTIC DRTR *** SEG RUF fll Zl R2 Z2 A3 Z3 F0 Fl F2 F3 DB1 VU1 PVLJ1 VLJ2 PVU2 \'IJ3 P\'U3 3N1 PSN1 SN2 PSN2 FR1 PFR1 PLl PPLl PL2 PPL2 STRS INFl INF2 Bl.ll BU2 BU3 HSEG NRG 1SIOOO0OOOOOQ 0 O0000 O 0 00000 0 0 0 MILPOINT I1ILP0INT STR6FRE0= niLPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT HILPOINT HILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT 11 23 150 41 42 43 44 45 46 4? 43 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 63 64 65 66 67 63 69 70 71 72 73 74 FREO FREO FREQ FREO FREO FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREO FREQ FREQ FPEQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FPEQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FPEQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FPEQ FREQ FREQ FPEQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ 235 243 183 202 116 149 138 136 133 1R6 181 181 116 183 180 183 173 168 168 ISO 95 95 192 235 183 135 185 185 135 185 185 181 183 183 180 FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FPSTDIF FPSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF TRSTDIF FPSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FPSTDIF FRSTDIF FPSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FL'STDIF FRSTDIF FPSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF 8 6961 19 86 33 33 2 53 53 5 0 65 67 •_< _ 3 10 5 0 n 65 t l 97 S3 102 2 0 0 0 0 O 4 2 0 3 0 MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT STRBFREO= MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT STPlBFREQ = MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT MILPOINT 75 76 77 78 79 80 185 81 t_i<_ 84 85 36 87 38 83 90 91 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 180 121 122 123 124 125 126 FREQ FREQ FREQ FRE2 FREQ FREQ FREQ FPEQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FPEQ FREQ FREO FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREO FPEO FREQ FREQ FREQ FREO FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ FREQ 186 173 175 176 176 173 180 180 181 131 ISO 180 180 178 190 185 135 185 186 185 136 136 133 130 134 134 132 136 200 202 2U2 204 202 202 204 38 130 186 136 173 175 173 170 170 165 178 161 172 147 166 160 158 FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF F n STDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FPSTDIF FPSTDIF FPSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF -R5TDIF FPSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FPSTDIF FPSTDIF FRSTDIF FPSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FPSTDIF FRSTDIF FPSTDIF FPSTDIF FPSTDIF FPSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF 2 3 1 0 2 4216 0 1 50 43 0 0 2 12 5 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 2 4 0 2 4 4 ••p 0 2 2 0 2 106 92 4 0 3 2 z 0 5 13 -213 0 11 25 13 6 2 2 MILPOINT 127 MILPOINT 128 MILPOINT 123 MILPOINT 130 MILPOINT 145 MILPOINT 146 STflBFREO= 158 MILPOINT 286 MILPOINT 287 STRBFREQ= 158 MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC mi SFI- MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC 0F-REQ 10FREO 20FREO 30FREO 40FREQ 50FRE0 60FRE0 70FREQ 30FRE0 38FREQ 100FREO 110FREQ 120FREQ 130FRE0 140FRLO 150FRE0 160FREQ 170rREQ 180FRE0 190FREO 2O0FREO 210FRE0 220FREO 230FREQ 240FREO 250FRE0 260FRE0 270FREQ 280FREQ 290FRE0 3O0FREQ 310FREO 320FPEQ 330FRE0 340FRE0 350FREQ 360FRE0 370FPEQ 380FPE0 330FPEQ 4nriFPFn 410FREO 420FREO 430FFEO FREQ FREQ FREQ FPEQ FREO FRCO FREQ FREO OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ 0HZ 0HZ OHZ OHZ OHZ BHZ 2V4HZ. "OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ 0HZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ l\'2HZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ 0HZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ 0HZ OHZ RHf 133HZ 202HZ 202HZ 156 163 138 183 122 FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FRSTDIF FPSTDIF FRSTDIF 153 FPSTDIF 285 FRSTDIF 7 25 45 61 163 132 25 - i 144 MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC Mil SEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC 448FRE0 450FRE0 460FREO 470FPEO 4801 REO 430FREQ 508FRE0 518FRE0 520FREQ 530FREQ 540FREQ 550FREQ 560FRE0 570FRE0 580FPEO 590FREO 600FRE0 610FPE0 620FREQ 630FRE0 6^0FRE0 650FREQ 660FREQ 670FRE0 680FRE0 690FPE0 700FREQ 710FPEQ 720FPEQ 730FRE0 740FRE0 750FREQ 760FPEQ 770FREQ 780FPE0 790FRE0 800FRE0 810FRE0 320FRE0 830FPE0 840FPE0 350FPED S60FREQ 870FRE0 bBOFPZO 890FREO 90OFREO 310FREQ 320FPE0 938FRE0 340FREO 350FPE0 36QFRE0 370FRE0 10 jnc 185^ 185Hd 149HZ 138HZ 186HZ 198HZ 186HZ 181HZ 131HZ' 181HZ 183HZ 180HZ 133HZ 173HZ 168HZ 168HZ 160HZ 11 HZ 192HZ 192HZ OHZ 1S-8HZ 183HZ 185HZ t 185HZ 185HZ 185HZ 181HZ 183HZ 1831JZ 180HZ 180HZ 178HZ 175HZ 176HZ 176HZ 178HZ 180l}lZ 180HZ 181HZ - 131HZ isohz 130HZ« 180HZ 17°H 7 190HZ' 185h|Z lSShiZ 185HZ- 186HZ 185HZ 136HZ- 186HZ 188HZ -a. -3 f -5" -r -flr -/o -// -12. & '7 (**) /300 Mset. 89a •3* f.see* MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC 98BFRE0 330FPEO 10O0FREO 1010FREO 102OFREQ 1030FREQ 1040FREQ 1850FREQ 1060FREQ 1070FREQ 108OFREQ 1030FRE0 1100FREO 1110FREO 112OFRE0 1130FRE0 1 1 tOFREQ 1150FRE0 1160FRE0 1170FREQ 1180FFE0 1130FREQ 1200FPEQ 1210FREQ 1220FREQ 1230FREQ 1240FREQ 1250FPEQ 1260FREQ 1270FREQ 1230FRE0 1290FRE0 1300FREQ 190HZJc^g 134HZ 134HZ 132HZ-/f r 196HZ 200HZ 202HZ--2 O 202HZ 204HZ 202HZ-* / 202HZ 204HZ 190'HZ-** - 190HZ 186HZ 186HZ-22J 178HZ 173HZ-*8|£ 170HZ 170HZ«r#^ 165HZ 178HZ 161HZ-2 * 172HZ 147HZ-27 166HZ 160HZ 158HZ*2 0 15SHZ 163^Z»>*fl 138H 133HZ-iflP > MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC 1310FRE0 1320FREO 1330FREQ 1340FREQ 1350FREQ 1360FRE0 1370FPE0 1380FRE0 139QFRE0 14O0FREQ 1410FREQ 1420FREQ 1430FRE0 1440FREQ 1450FRE0 1463FREQ 1470FREQ 14R0FRE0 1490FREQ 1500FREO 1510FREQ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ UHZ OHZ OHZ 2W9H Z CxiCrt OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ APPENDIX C COMPARED PRINTOUTS AND SONAGRAMS 146 I 147 DON'T HAVE NO WIFE? BSIZE = 2000 LBLOX= FTYPE= VBVER= 321 5 PFILE= MATHV = 4 LMIL= 1100 300 RMIL= 0 0 SEGV= 0 DATE= 8/27/73 SPKR= 1 SFSS= 5 SAMP= 664 POSP= 114fi NEGP= -127C ABSP= 1270 RECV= 0 SMUV= 0 FILE = 321 MILSEC OFRFQ OHZ MILSEC MILSEC ICFREQ 20FREQ OHZ OHZ MILSEC MIL SEC 30FREQ 40FREQ OHZ OHZ MILSEC MILSFC 50FREQ oOFPEQ OHZ OHZ MILSEC MILSEC MILSFC MILSFC 70FREQ BOFREQ 9QFREQ" lOOFREQ OHZ _0_HZ Chi OHZ MILSEC MILSt C MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSFC IIOFRE Q 120FRFQ 130FREQ 140FREQ 150FRFQ 160FREQ OHZ OHZ 243HZ 227HZ 224H7 224HZ MILSEC MILSEC I 70FREQ 180FREQ 227HZ 22 7HZ MILSFC MILSEC 190FREQ 2C0FREQ •227HZ 232HZ MILSEC MILSFC MILSEC MILSCC MILSEC MILSFC 210FREQ 220FREQ P30FREQ 240FRFQ 25^FREQ 260FRE0 23 5H'Z 23 2Hfe 235H7 23RHZ 238HZ 240HZ MILSEC MILSEC 270FREQ 280FREQ 243fjtZ 243HZ MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSt C 290FPEQ _300FREQ_ 310FREQ 320FREQ 256HZ 256HZ 259HZ 266HZ MILSEC MILSFC 330FREQ 34UFREQ 270HZ 266HZ MILStC MILSEC 350FREQ 36<^FREQ 266HZ 270HZ MILSFC MILSFC. 3 70FREQ 380FREQ MILSEC MILSEC 390FREQ 4P0FREQ 270HLZ 266HZ 266HZ 270HZ MILSEC MILSEC 410FREU 420FREQ 270HZ 270HZ MILSEC MILSEC 430FRFQ 440FREQ 266H^ 270H i MILSEC MILSFC 450FRFQ 460FPEQ 263HZ 263HZ MILSEC MILSEC ICFRE Q 600FREQ 253HZ 253HZ MILSEC MILSFC 610FRFQ 620FREQ 253HZ 253HZ MILSEC MILSEC 630FREQ 640FRCQ 25CHZ 250HZ MILSEC | MILSEC I MILSEC MILSEC , MILSEC | MILSFC MILSEC MILSFC 470FREU 480FRE0 49GFREQ 500FPEQ 51 OFRFQ 52UFRFQ 530FREQ 540FREQ 2b3HZ 259HZ 259HZ 256HZ 259HZ 26 3HZ 259HZ 259HZ | MILSEC MILSLC 1 MIL SCC MILStC 550FRFQ 5 6 0FKEQ 5 7'tFREQ 5B0FREQ 259HZ 259HZ 259HZ 256HZ MILSFC MILSEC 650FREQ 660FREQ 250HZ 246HZ MILSEC MILSEC 67OFREQ 68CFREQ 235HZ 204HZ MILSEC MILSEC 69CFREQ 70CFREQ 206HZ 2 59HZ MILSEC MILSt C 710FREQ 720FRFQ 259HZ 266HZ MILSFC MILSFC 730FREQ 740FREQ 2 73HZ 270HZ MILSEC MILSEC 7bOFPEQ 760FREQ 27 OHZ 270HZ MILSEC 770FREQ 270HZ MILSEC 780FREQ 270HZ MILSEC 790FREQ 270HZ MILSEC 800FREQ 273HZ MILSEC 810FREQ 270HZ MILSEC 820FRFQ 270HZ MILSEC 830FREQ 277HZ MILSEC 840FREQ 277HZ 1 — - 1 MILSEC MILSFC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSFC MILSFC MILSEC MILSEC MILSFC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC 850FRFQ 860FREQ 870FREQ 8H0FREQ 890FREQ 900FREQ 910FPEQ 920FREQ 930FREQ 940FRFQ 950FREQ 960FRFQ 970FREQ 980FREQ 990FREQ 1000FPEQ 1C10FREQ 1020FPFQ 1030FREQ 1C40FREQ 1050FREQ 1C60FREQ 1070FRFQ 1CR0FRFQ 277HZ 277HZ 281HZ 281HZ 277HZ 277HZ 273HZ 270HZ 27 311Z 270H7 2 7 OHZ 263HZ 273H7 OHZ "OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ CHZ OHZ • " "" \ j 1 TYPE B/6 5 SONAGRAM ® KAY ELEMETRICS CO. PINE BROOK. N. J. •s-iir- * - - m xifMr ffrah '" — DO YOU HAVE ANY GIRLFRIENDS? BSIZE= 2000 LBLOX= 5 LMI L= 1800 FTYPE= 321 PFILE= 300 RMIL= 0 VBVER= 5 MATHV= C SEGV= 0 , DATE= 8/27/73 i , SPKR= 1 SESS= 5 SAMP= 82 9 'POSP= 1183 NEGP= -1358 ABSP= 1358 RECV= 0 SMUV = 0 FILE= 321 MILSt C MILSEC MILSFC MILSEC MILSt L MILSEC. MILSEC MILSEC MILSFC MILSFC MILSt C MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSFC MlLSfcC MILSt C MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSt C MILSEL OFRtQ ICFREQ 2OFRtU 3'°FRFQ 4'JFREQ 50FREQ 60FRt O 7CFRFQ 80FREQ 9CFREQ lG'jI-RfcO UOFRFQ 12 0FPEO 130FKEQ 140Fkt Q IIOFREQ 160FRFQ 170FREQ ldUFREQ 190FREQ 2 00FRFQ 2 10FREQ 230FREQ OHZ OHZ Chi OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ 0 HZ OHZ OH/. OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ "UHT OHZ OHZ OHZ MILSFC 2b0FRFQ OHZ 152 MILSEC 260FREQ OHZ MILSt C 270FREQ OHZ MILSEC 280FREQ OHZ MILSFC 290FRCQ OHZ MILSEC 300FREQ OHZ MILSEC 310FRFQ OHZ MILSEC 320FRE0 OHZ MILSEC 330FREQ OHZ MILSEC MILSEC MILSCC MILSFC MILSt C MILSEC. MILSEC MILSFC 340FREQ 35GFREQ 360FREQ 3 7 0FREQ 3 80FREQ 390FREQ 40OFREQ 41CFRE0 OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ OHZ HHZ OHZ GHZ MILSEC MILSEC MILSFC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSt C 420FREQ 430FREO 440FRCQ 4 50FREQ 460FRF 0 470FRF 0 480FRFQ 490FRFQ 215HZ 224HZ 224HZ 217HZ 219HZ 224HZ 2 22H7. 224HZ MILSEC 5C0FREQ 215HZ MILSEC 510FREQ 224HZ MILSEC 520FREQ 224H7 MILSEC. 53QPRFU 224HZ MILSFC 5^-OFRFQ 217HZ MILSEC 550FREQ 224HZ MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC MILSEC 5 6 0FRLQ 570FREQ bCOFRhQ 590FREQ 224117 222HZ 2 19HZ 217HZ Ml LSEC oCOFREQ 219HZ MILSEC 6ir>FREQ 217HZ MlLTFC 620FRtQ 217HZ MILSEC 630FP.EQ 217HZ MILSEC 640FREQ 208HZ MILSt C 650FREQ 208HZ MILSEC 66CFREQ 2 06HZ MILSEC O70FREQ 204HZ MILSEC 6 8 0FRFQ 190 HZ MILSEC 690FREQ 198HZ MILSLC 700Fkl!Q UWT MILSEC 710FRFQ OHZ MIL SEC 720FRF.Q OTil" MILSEC 730FREQ OHZ MILSCC 740FREQ 227HZ MILSEC 75fFREQ 208HZ MILSEC MILSEC 760FREQ 770FREQ 208HZ 206HZ MILSEC MILSEC 78 r 'FRtQ 790FRFQ 20 2 HZ 2C2HZ MILSFC MILSEC MILSFC MILSFC 800FREQ 810FRCQ TOliTlZ 208H Z 8 2UFRF.Q 830FREQ 208HZ 217HZ MILStC MILSEC 8 40 F R10 850FRFQ 217HZ 217HZ MILStC MILSFC S60FRE0 8 70FREQ 224HZ 224HZ MILSFC MILSEC 880FREQ 890FREQ 229H7 22^H Z MILSEC MILSEC MI L SEX MILSF f 9C0FRFQ 910FREQ 2 50HZ 212HZ 920FRE0 930FREQ 224HZ- 173HZ MILSEC MILSEC MILStC " MILSFC 'MirSECT MILSFC 94UFREQ 95 0FRFQ 2J2HZ OHZ £ V6CFRFC 970FREQ "oTFOFRTTT 990FREQ OHZ OHZ OUT OHZ MILSEC MILSFC 10*" OF REG 1010FPFQ 259HZ 2 5011Z MILSt C MILSFC 1020FREQ ]u3^FRE 0 2 59 HZ 266HZ MILlTFTT MILSEC 104OFKEQ 105CFRFQ 266HZ 266 HZ MILSEC MILSt C 1060FRfcQ 1C7CFREQ 2b6HZ 2 73(17. MILSt C loBCFRn r 1090FREQ ~Z7THT 2 73HZ MILSEC MILSEC nTToTRFO - 1IIOFRE Q 281 HZ 2 81 HZ MILStC MILSEC 112'jFktQ 1130FRFQ 173HZ 281HZ MILSEC MILSEC wrsur- MILSEC 114CFRtQ 1150FRFQ 289IIZ 2 94HZ U6''iFRFQ 117CFREQ 289HZ 2 89HZ MILSFC MILSCC 1180FRE0 U90FPE0 2«9HZ 281 HZ -IILSFC MILSEC MILSLC 120CFRF.U 1210FREQ 1220FKFQ 281HZ 2 85 HZ mr OHZ MILSFC 1230FREQ TYPE B/6S SONAGRAM ® KAY ELEMETRICS CO. PINE BROOK. N. J. •J&, -' !i. i APPENDIX D DATA POINT TOTALS AND MEANS 155 156 , Data Point Totals and Means for the Declarative Sentence Black English Standard English Black English Standard English Data Formal Formal Informal Informal Point Total Mean total Mean Total Mean Total Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 9153 8522 8809 8853 8944 8914 8941 8784 8352 8422 8349 8876 8717 8643 8373 8312 8290 8467 8458 8556 8623 8908 8696 8477 8425 8152 8087 7534 7742 7817 N - 217.93 202.90 209.74 210.79 212.95 212.24 212.88 209.14 198.86 200.52 198.79 211.33 207.55 205.79 199.36 197.90 197.38 201.60 201.38 203.71 205.31 212.10 207.05 201.83 200.60 194.10 192.55 179.38 184.33 186.12 • 42 9191 9068 9469 9715 9260 9355 9318 9263 9548 9286 9082 9379 9346 9293 8474 8599 9011 8947 9310 8862 8958 8902 9102 8934 8867 8616 8624 8677 8655 8503 N = 228.78 226.70 236.73 242.88 231.50 233.88 232.95 231.58 238.70 232.15 227.05 234.48 233.65 232.33 211.85 214.98 225.28 223.68 232.75 221.55 223.95 222.55 227.55 223.35 221.68 215.40 215.60 216.93 216.38 212.58 » 40 9548 9658 9372 9488 9580 9634 9516 9288 9534 9770 9633 9743 9653 9802 9633 9414 9590 9451 9676 9501 9801 9445 9582 9438 9354 9349 9260 8946 9077 9537 N » 198.92 201.21 195.25 197.67 199.58 200.71 198.25 193.50 198.63 203.54 200.69 202.98 201.10 204.21 200.69 196.13 199.79 196.90 201.58 197.94 204.19 196.77 199.63 196.63 194.88 194.77 192.92 186.38 189.10 198.69 > 48 8972 8797 8583 8697 8324 8242 8157 7985 8281 8278 8537 8562 8352 8415 8048 7839 7834 7863 7873 7759 7793 7962 8049 7977 7888 7590 7559 7740 7402 7573 N « 230.05 225.56 220.08 223.00 213.44 211.33 209.15 204.74 212.33 212.26 218.90 219.54 214.15 215.77 206.36 201.00 200.87 201.62 201.87 198.95 199.82 204.15 206.38 204.54 202.26 194.62 193.82 198.46 189.79 194.18 • 39 Data Point Totals and Means for the General Question Black English Standard English Black English Standard English Data Formal Formal Informal Informal Point 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Total 10040 9579 9723 9571 9588 9694 9669 9585 9669 9664 9500 9592 9830 9605 9628 9657 9428 9468 9543 9456 9453 9544 9600 9819 9742 9923 10073 9887 9885 9897 N Mean 209.17 199.56 202.56 199.40 199.75 201,96 201.44 199.69 201.44 200.92 197.92 199.83 204.79 200.10 200.58 201.19 196.42 197.25 198.81 197.00 196.94 198.83 200.00 204.56 202.96 206.73 209.85 205.98 205.31 206.19 = 48 Total 9132 9037 9040 9472 9093 9324 9183 9379 9024 9310 9188 9539 9521 9592 9536 9437 9535 9391 9468 9495 9039 9321 9061 8963 9155 8961 8977 9402 9548 9127 N = Mean 212.37 210.16 210.23 220.28 211.47 216.84 213.56 218.12 209.86 216.51 213.67 221.84 221.42 223.07 221.77 219.47 221.74 218.40 220.19 220.81 210.21 216.77 210.72 208.44 212.91 208.40 208.77 218.65 222.05 212.26 « 43 Total 7668 7249 7187 7130 7368 7519 7619 7474 7608 7763 7762 7602 7344 7625 7455 7573 7625 7596 7764 7797 8186 8216 8147 7972 7951 7829 7980 7850 7859 7852 N = Mean 207.24 195.92 194.24 192.70 199.14 203.22 205.92 202.00 205.62 209.81 209.78 205.46 198.49 206.08 201.49 204.68 206.08 205.30 209.84 210.73 221.24 222.05 220.19 215.46 214.89 211.59 215.68 212.16 212.41 212.22 •• 37 Total 10781 10124 10146 10297 10347 10300 10765 10626 10640 10671 10427 10250 10336 10069 9954 10236 10155 10308 10258 10334 10480 10548 10685 10481 10738 10848 11012 11198 11275 10854 N Mean 239.58 224.98 225.47 228.82 229.93 228.89 239.22 236.13 236.44 237.13 231.71 227.78 229.69 223.76 221.20 227.47 225.67 229.07 227.96 229.64 232.89 234.40 237.47 232.91 238.62 241.07 244.71 248.84 250.56 241.20 = 45 158 Data Point Totals and Means for The Specific Question Black English Standard English Black English Standard English Data f 0 "" 91 .. Formal Informal Informal Point Total Mean Total Mean Total Mean Total Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 10142 10071 10499 10768 10511 10248 10732 10843 10771 10755 10538 10394 10364 10444 10260 10175 10112 10090 9554 9874 9457 9225 9256 9275 9365 9281 9038 8685 8563 8908 N 211.29 209.81 218.73 224.33 218.98 213.50 223.58 225.90 224.40 224.06 219.54 216.54 215.92 217.58 213.75 211.98 210.67 210.21 199.04 205.71 197.02 192.12 192.83 193.23 195.10 193.35 188.29 180.94 178.40 185.58 = 48 10291 9763 9847 9781 9984 10049 9911 9396 9603 9625 9971 10234 10430 10653 10268 9952 10139 9818 10017 10138 9845 9872 9524 0786 9423 9500 8983 8789 8479 8210 N 233.89 221.89 223.80 222.30 226.91 228.39 225.25 213.55 218.24 218.75 226.61 232.59 237.05 242.11 233.36 226.18 230.43 223.14 227.66 230.41 223.75 224.36 216.45 222.41 214.16 215.91 204.16 199.75 192.70 186.59 = 44 9028 8929 9219 9120 9034 9150 9148 9159 8885 8959 9136 8642 8570 8469 8672 8661 8794 8759 8499 8422 8363 8355 8108 8016 7781 7741 7582 7301 7359 7442 N « 214.95 212.60 219.50 217.14 215.10 217.85 217.81 218.07 211.57 213.29 217.52 205.76 204.05 201.64 206.48 206.21 209.38 208.55 202.36 200.52 199.12 198.93 193.05 190.86 185.26 184.31 180.52 173.83 175.21 177.19 •• 42 13198 12687 12846 12940 12860 12930 13069 13179 12895 13255 13126 12714 13053 13491 13170 13147 12773 13162 13151 12869 12560 12592 12256 12196 11788 11625 11530 11010 11652 11688 N 227.55 218.74 221.48 223.10 221.72 222.93 225.16 227.22 222.33 228.02 226.31 219.21 225.05 232.60 227.07 226.67 220.22 226.93 226.74 221.88 216.71 217.10 211.31 210.28 203.24 200.43 198.79 189.83 200.90 201.52 • 58 APPENDIX E MASTER TABLES OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS 159 BLSF STSF BLSI STSI BLSF STSI BLGF STGF BLGI STGI BLDF STDF BLDI 1.000 0 ( 0) S=0.00 1 0.636 5 ( 30) S=0.00 1 0.917 5 ( 30) S=0.00 1 0.841 2 ( 30) S=0.00 1 STSF BLSI 0.6365 ( 30) S=0.001 0.9175 ( 30) S=0.001 1.0000 ( 0) S=0.001 0.6745 ( 30) S=0.001 0.6745 ( 30) S=0.001 1.0000 ( 0) S=0.001 0.7846 ( 30) S=0.001 0.8730 ( 30) S=0.001 0.841 2 ( 30) S=0.00 1 0.784 6 ( 30) S=0.00 1 -0.432 6 ( 30) S=0.00 8 -0.475 3 ( 30) S=0.00 4 0.178 5 ( 30) S=0.17 3 0.284 9 ( 30) S=0.06 3 -0.703 4 ( 30) S=0.00 1 -0.345 9 ( 30) S=0.03 1 -0.594 3 ( 30) S=0.00 1 -0.781 2 ( 30) S=0.00 1 0.626 3 ( 30) S=0.00 1 0.713 0 < 30) S=0.00 1 0.708 5 ( 30) S=0.00 I 0.474 3 ( 30) S=0.00 4 0.510 7 C 30) S=0.00 2 0.656 1 ( 30) S=0.00 1 0.873 0 ( 30) S=0.00 1 -0.519 4 ( 30) S=0.00 2 1.000 0 ( 0) S=0.00 1 -0.569 7 ( 30) S=0.00 1 0.092 7 ( 30) S=0.31 3 0.341 8 ( 30) S=0.03 2 -0.639 2 ( 30) S=0.00 1 -0.643 3 ( 30) S=0.00 1 0.743 5 ( 30) S=0.00 1 0.708 0 ( 30) S=0.00 1 -0.4946 ( 30) S=0.003 -0.7295 { 30) 5=0.001 0.6800 ( 30) S=0.001 0.5779 { 30) S=0.001 0.524 9 ( 30) S=0.00 1 0.669 8 ( 30) S=0.00 1 STDI 0.691 2 ( 30) S=0.00 1 0.582 0 ( 30) S=0.00 1 0.729 4 ( 30) S=0.00 1 0.590 1 ( 30) S=0.00 1 BLSF BLDI 0.5107 ( 30) S=0.002 STDI 0.6912 ( 30) S=0.001 BLDF 0.6263 ( 30) S=0.001 STDF 0.7085 ( 30) S=0.001 STSF BLSI 0.6561 ( 30) S=0.001 0.5249 ( 30) S=0.001 0.5820 ( 30) S=0.001 0.7294 ( 30) S=0.001 0.7130 ( 30) S=0.001 0.7435 ( 30) S=0.001 0.4743 ( 30) S=0.004 0.7080 ( 30) S=0.001 STSI 0.6698 { 30) S=0.001 0.5901 ( 30) S=0.001 0.6800 ( 30) S=0.001 0.5779 { 30) S=0.001 BLGF -0.4964 ( 30) S=0.003 -0.1490 ( 30) S=0.216 -0.3352 ( 30) S=0.035 -0.3189 ( 30) S=0.043 STGF BLGI 0.0668 ( 30) S=0.363 -0.1406 ( 30) S=0.229 -0.0418 ( 30) S=0.413 -0.5940 ( 30) S=0.001 -0.0345 ( ^O) S=0.428 -0.3139 ( 30) S=0.046 0.0549 ( 30) S=0.387 -0.4996 ( 30) S=0.002 STGI BLDF -0.6638 { 30) S=0.001 0.5293 ( 30 ) S=0.001 -0.4715 ( 30) S=0.004 0.6739 ( 30) S=0.001 -0.5037 ( 30) S=0.002 1.0000 ( 0) S=0.001 -0.3513 ( 30) S=0.028 0.6762 i 30) S=0.001 STDF BLDI 0.4201 ( 30) S=0.010 1.0000 ( 0) S=0.001 0.7144 ( 30) S=0.001 0.4827 ( 30) S=0.003 0.6762 ( 30) S=0.001 0.5293 < 30) S=0.001 1.0000 ( 0) S=0.001 0.4201 ( 30) S=0.010 STDI 0.4827 ( 30) S=0.003 i 1.0000 ( 0) S=0.001 0.6739 ( 30) S=0.001 0.7144 ( 30) S=0.001 162 BLGF STGF BLGI STGI BLSF STSF BLSI STSI BLGF STGF BLGI STGI BLDF STDF BLDI STDI (n— i II o o . • * ouu ooro 00 —o -0.475 3 ( 30) S=0.00 4 -0.519 4 < 30) S=0.00 2 -0.569 7 ( 30) S=0.00 1 1.000 0 ( 0) S=0.00 1 -0.337 0 ( 30) S=0.03 4 0.122 3 ( 30) S=0.26 0 0.649 1 ( 30) S=0.00 1 -0.335 2 ( 30) S=0«03 5 -0.318 9 ( 30) S=0.04 3 ! -0.4964 1 < 30) 1 S=0.003 -0.149 0 ( 30) 1 S=0.216 0.178 5 ( 30) . S=0.173 0.284 9 ( 30) S=0.06 3 0.092 7 ( 30) S=0.31 3 0.341 8 ( 30) S=0.03 2 -0.337 0 ( 30) S=0.03 4 1.000 0 ( 0) S=0.00 1 -0.252 4 < 30) S=0.08 9 -0.303 9 ( 30) S=0.05 1 -0.034 5 ( 30) S=0.42 8 0.054 9 ( 30) S=0.38 7 0.066 8 ( 30) S=0.36 3 -0.041 8 ( 30) S=0.41 3 -0.703 4 ( 30) S=0.00 1 -0.345 9 ( 30) S=0.03 1 -0.639 2 ( 30) S=0.00 1 -0.494 6 ( 30) S=0.00 3 0.122 3 ( 30) S=0.26 0 -0.252 4 ( 30) S=0.08 9 1.000 0 ( 0) S=0.00 1 0.526 4 ( 30) S=0.00 1 -0.313 9 ( 30) S=0.04 6 -0.499 6 ( 30) S=0.00 2 -0.140 6 ( 30) S=0.22 9 -0.594 0 ( 30) S=0.00 1 -0.594 3 { 30) S=0.00 1 -0.781 2 ( 30) S=0.00 1 -0.643 3 ( 30) S=0.00 1 -0.729 5 ( 30) S=0.00 1 0.649 1 ( 30) S=0.00 1 -0.303 9 ( 30) S=0.05 1 0.526 4 ( 30) S=0.00 1 1.000 0 ( 0) S=0.00 1 -0.503 7 ( 30) S=0.00 2 -0.351 3 ( 30) S=0.02 8 -0.663 8 ( 30) S=0.00 I -0.471 5 ( 30) S=0.00 4 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 163 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Aarons, Alfred C , Barbara Y. Gordon, and William A. Stewart (eds.). Linguistic-Cultural Differences and American Education. Miami: The Florida Fl Reporter, Inc., 1969. Aurbach, Joseph. A Phonemic and Phonetic Description of the Speech of Selected Negro Informants of South-Central Los Angeles. Santa Barbara: Speech Communications Research Laboratory, Inc., 1971. Dillard, J.L. "The English Teacher and the Language of the Newly Integrated Student," Teachers College Record, 69 (November, 1967), 115-120. Evertts, Eldonna (ed.). Dimensions of Dialects. Champaign: National Council of Teachers of English, 1967. Fasold, Ralph W. "Tense and the Form be 1n Black English," Language, 45 (December, 1969), pp. 755-770. Flanagan, F.L. and M.G. Saslow. "Pitch Discrimination for Synthetic Vowels," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 30 (1958), pp. 435-442. Guilford, J.P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw - Hill, Inc.. 1956. "How to Talk Black," Newsweek. 79 (February 21, 1972), p. 70. Labov, William, P. Cohen, C. Robins, and J. Lewis. A Study of the Nonstandard English of Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers in New York City. New York: Columbia University, 1968. . "The Study of Language in its Social Context," Studium Generale. 23 (1969), 30-87. . The Study of Nonstandard English. Champaign: National Council of Teachers of English, 1970. . "Academic Ignorance and Black Intelligence," Atlantic, February, 1973, pp. 59-67. Loman, Bengt. "Intonation Patterns In a Negro American Dialect: A Preliminary Report." Unpublished study, Center for Applied Linguistics, Washington, D.C., 1967. 164 165 O'Neill, George. "NNE Grammatical Items in the Speech of Negro Elementary School Children as Correl ;tes of Age, Grade, and Social Status." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Southern California, 1972. P1ke, K.L. The Intonation of American English. Ann Arbor: Un1verslty of Michigan Press, 1946. Tarone, Elaine. "Aspects of Intonation In Vernacular White and Black English Speech." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Washington, 1972. Wolfram, Walter A. A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1969.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Communicating in organizations: The influence of context, job, task, and channel

PDF

Communicating at the bonding stage of relationships: The role of self-disclosure and relational competence in dyadic adjustment.

PDF

A ship in a bottle: How communication builds the lifeboats of the world's largest A.A. group

PDF

Attitude Change As A Function Of Ego-Involvement And Message Discrepancy: An Empirical Test Of Competing Theoretic Statements

PDF

Lower And Middle Socioeconomic Class Children'S Interpretation Of Stimulus Sentences With Contradictory Message Cues

PDF

Communication strategies in barricade-hostage confrontations: Theory, research, and police experience

PDF

Cinematic concepts and techniques in the adaptation and staging of chamber theatre

PDF

Chicanismo in selected poetry from the Chicano movement, 1969-1972: A rhetorical study

PDF

A comparison of real-time and post hoc evaluation of a media presentation

PDF

Anomy And Verbal Behavior In Task-Oriented Small Groups: An Exploratory Study

PDF

Oral Interpretation Of Literature In The Los Angeles Community Colleges: A Proposed Program To Meet The Needs Of Black Students

PDF

Clint Eastwood: An ideological study of his films, star image, and popularity

PDF

A study of the "eastern" writer in Hollywood in the 1930's

PDF

A representation for semantic information within an inference-making computer program

PDF

A critical analysis of ideology and discourse in two hotels

PDF

An Experimental Analysis Of The Effects Of Message Type, Degree Of Interpersonal Similarity, And Type Of Interpersonal Similarity On Attitude Change And Ratings Of Source Credibility

PDF

A Historical And Critical Study Of The Public Address Of James Harvey 'Cyclone' Davis (1853-1940) Of Texas

PDF

Communicative performance with media: Effects and implications of television and adult-child interaction on preschooler's language

PDF

Analysis of information process for software development productivity

PDF

Contemporary solo performance of Homer's "Iliad" in translation

Asset Metadata

Creator Winkler, Henry John (author)

Core Title A study of the intonation patterns of black and Standard English speaking children in formal and informal situations

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Communication

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Black studies,OAI-PMH Harvest,speech communication

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Frentz, Thomas (committee chair), Fisher, Walter (committee member), Knirk, Frederick G. (committee member), Purcell, Edward (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-448501

Unique identifier UC11351787

Identifier 7417387.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-448501 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7417387-0.pdf

Dmrecord 448501

Document Type Dissertation

Rights WINKLER, HENRY JOHN

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA