1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. English Text Construction
  4. Volume 17, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1874-8767
  • E-ISSN: 1874-8775
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper studies the effect of prosodic prominence on the production of English checked steady-state vowels. Previous studies found that prosodic factors, such as proximity to a strong prosodic boundary, influence vowel production, but the effect of prosodic prominence has not been studied in sufficient detail. This paper addresses this gap, examining if vowel duration correlates with prosodic prominence, more specifically with a three-way distinction between primary, secondary and non-prominence. This effect is compared to that of proximity to a strong prosodic boundary and to the prosodic boundary strength. This allows us to investigate not only the potential role of prosodic prominence in vowel production but also how it holds up to the previously observed effects of proximity and prosodic boundary strength. The findings provide new insights into the production of English vowels, while also adducing evidence for the relevance of a three-way phonological distinction between primary, secondary and non-prominence.

© 2024 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/etc.25005.ver
2025-10-16
2025-11-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/etc.25005.ver
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arvaniti, Amalia & Mary Baltazani
    2000 “GREEK ToBI: A System for the Annotation of Greek Speech Corpora”. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2000), vol.II1.555–562. Athens: European Language Resources Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ayers, Gayle M.
    1996 Nuclear accent types and prominence: Some psycholinguistic experiments. Ohio: The Ohio State University PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnes, Jonathan, Nanette Veilleux, Alejna Brugos & Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel
    2010 Turning points, tonal targets, and the English L- phrase accent. Language and Cognitive Processes251. 982–1023. 10.1080/01690961003599954
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690961003599954 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, & Steve Walker
    2015 Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software671. 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baumann, Stefan & Petra B. Schumacher
    2020 The incremental processing of focus, givenness and prosodic prominence. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics51. Open Library of Humanities.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Baumann, Stefan
    2006 The intonation of givenness: Evidence from German. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 10.1515/9783110921205
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110921205 [Google Scholar]
  7. Beckman, Mary E. & Gayle Ayers Elam
    1993 Guidelines for ToBI Labelling. The Ohio State University Research Foundation.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Beckman, Mary E. & K. Bretonnel Cohen
    2000 Modeling the articulatory dynamics of two levels of stress contrast. InMerle Horne (ed.) Prosody: theory and experiment, 169–200. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9413‑4_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9413-4_7 [Google Scholar]
  9. Beckman, Mary E. & Sun-Ah Jun
    1996 K-ToBI (Korean ToBI) labelling convention. Distributed 1996, Ohio State University & UCLA.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Beckman, Mary E., Julia Bell Hirschberg & Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel
    2005 Chapter 2: the original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. InSun-Ah Jun (ed.), Prosodic models and transcription: towards prosodic typology, 9–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199249633.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199249633.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bishop, Jason Brandon
    2013 Prenuclear accentuation in English: phonetics, phonology, and information structure. Los Angeles: UCLA PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Boersma, Paul & David Weenink
    2016 Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Version 6.0.23. www.praat.org/
  13. Breen, Mara, Evelina Fedorenko, Michael Wagner & Edward Gibson
    2010 Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes251. 1044–1098. 10.1080/01690965.2010.504378
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.504378 [Google Scholar]
  14. Browman, Catherine P. & Louis Goldstein
    1988 Some notes on syllable structure in Articulatory Phonology. Phonology451. 140–155.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2000 Competing constraints on intergestural coordination and self-organization of phonological structures. Bulletin de la Communication Parlée51. 25–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Burdin, Rachel S., Rory Turnbull & Cynthia G. Clopper
    2014 Variability in vowel production: Exploring interactions among frequency, neighborhood density, predictability, and mention. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America135(4). 2291–2291. 10.1121/1.4877520
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4877520 [Google Scholar]
  17. Byrd, Dani & Elliot Saltzman
    2003 The elastic phrase: modeling the dynamics of boundary-adjacent lengthening. Journal of Phonetics311. 149–180. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(02)00085‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(02)00085-2 [Google Scholar]
  18. Byrd, Dani & Susie Choi
    2010 At the juncture of prosody, phonology, and phonetics: the interaction of phrasal and syllable structure in shaping the timing of consonant gestures. InCécile Fougeron, Barbara Kuehnert & Mariapaola Imperio (eds.) Laboratory Phonology, 31–59. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110224917.1.31
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224917.1.31 [Google Scholar]
  19. Byrd, Dani
    1996 Influences on articulatory timing in consonant sequences. Journal of Phonetics241. 209–244. 10.1006/jpho.1996.0012
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1996.0012 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2000 Articulatory vowel lengthening and coordination at phrasal junctures. Phonetica571. 3–16. 10.1159/000028456
     https://doi.org/10.1159/000028456 [Google Scholar]
  21. Cambier-Langeveld, Tina & Alice Turk
    1999 A cross-linguistic study of accentual lengthening: Dutch vs. English. Journal of Phonetics271. 255–280. 10.1006/jpho.1999.0096
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1999.0096 [Google Scholar]
  22. Cho, Taehong & James M. McQueen
    2005 Prosodic influences on consonant production in Dutch: effects of prosodic boundaries, phrasal accent and lexical stress. Journal of Phonetics331. 121–157. 10.1016/j.wocn.2005.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2005.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Cho, Taehong & Patricia Keating
    2009 Effects of initial position versus prominence in English. Journal of Phonetics371. 466–485. 10.1016/j.wocn.2009.08.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2009.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Cho, Taehong
    2002 The effects of prosody on articulation in English. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 2005 Prosodic strengthening and featural enhancement: evidence from acoustic and articulatory realizations of /ɑ,i/ in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America1171. 3867–3878. 10.1121/1.1861893
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1861893 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2016 Prosodic boundary strengthening in the phonetics–prosody interface. Language and Linguistics Compass101. 120–141. 10.1111/lnc3.12178
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12178 [Google Scholar]
  27. Cole, Jennifer, Jeremy Steffman, Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel & Sam Tilsen
    2023 Hierarchical distinctions in the production and perception of nuclear tunes in American English. Laboratory Phonology141. 1–51. 10.16995/labphon.9437
     https://doi.org/10.16995/labphon.9437 [Google Scholar]
  28. Crystal, David
    1969 Prosodic systems and intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Erickson, Donna
    2002 Articulation of extreme formant patterns for emphasized vowels. Phonetica591. 134–149. 10.1159/000066067
     https://doi.org/10.1159/000066067 [Google Scholar]
  30. Fougeron, Cécile & Patricia A. Keating
    1997 Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. JASA1011. 3728–3740. 10.1121/1.418332
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.418332 [Google Scholar]
  31. Fox, John & Sanford Weisberg
    2018 Visualizing fit and lack of fit in complex regression models with predictor effect plots and partial residuals. Journal of Statistical Software871. 1–27. 10.18637/jss.v087.i09
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v087.i09 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2019 An R companion to applied regression, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Gafos, Adamantios & Louis Goldstein
    2012 Articulatory representation and phonological organization. InAbigail C. Cohn, Cécile Fougeron & Marie K. Huffman (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Laboratory Phonology, 220–231. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Georgeton, Laurianne & Cécile Fougeron
    2014 Domain-initial strengthening on French vowels and phonological contrasts: evidence from lip articulation and spectral variation. Journal of Phonetics441. 83–95. 10.1016/j.wocn.2014.02.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2014.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  35. Gussenhoven, Carlos & A. C. M. Rietveld
    1992 Intonation contours, prosodic structure and preboundary lengthening. Journal of Phonetics201. 283–303. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(19)30636‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30636-9 [Google Scholar]
  36. Gussenhoven, Carlos
    2005 Transcription of Dutch intonation. InSun-Ah Jun (ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 118–145. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199249633.003.0005
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199249633.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  37. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1967a Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783111357447
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111357447 [Google Scholar]
  38. 1967b Notes on transitivity and theme in English: part 2. Journal of Linguistics31. 199–244. 10.1017/S0022226700016613
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016613 [Google Scholar]
  39. 1970 A course in spoken English: intonation. London: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Harrington, Jonathan, Janet Fletcher & Corinne Roberts
    1995 Coarticulation and the accented/unaccented distinction: evidence from jaw movement data. Journal of Phonetics231. 305–322. 10.1016/S0095‑4470(95)80163‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(95)80163-4 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hart, Johan ’t, René Collier & Antonie Cohen
    1990 A perceptual study of intonation: an experimental-phonetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511627743
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627743 [Google Scholar]
  42. Jacewicz, Ewa, Joseph Salmons & Robert Allan Fox
    2009 Prosodic conditioning, vowel dynamics and sound change. InFrank Kügler, Caroline Féry & Ruben van de Vijver (eds.) Variation and gradience in phonetics and phonology, 99–214. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110219326.99
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219326.99 [Google Scholar]
  43. Jong, Kenneth de
    2004 Stress, lexical focus, and segmental focus in English: patterns of variation in vowel duration. Journal of Phonetics321. 493–516. 10.1016/j.wocn.2004.05.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2004.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  44. Jun, Sun-Ah
    2022 The ToBI transcription system: conventions, strengths, and challenges. InJonathan Barnes & Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel (eds.) Prosodic theory and practice, 151–181. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0007
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  45. Klatt, Dennis H.
    1976 Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: acoustic and perceptual evidence. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America591. 1208–1221. 10.1121/1.380986
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.380986 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2005 Vowel duration as a function of the syllabic structure of a word. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America541. 312–313. 10.1121/1.1978238
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1978238 [Google Scholar]
  47. Krivokapić, Jelena
    2014 Gestural coordination at prosodic boundaries and its role for prosodic structure and speech planning processes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B3691. 1–10. 10.1098/rstb.2013.0397
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0397 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff & Rune H. B. Christensen
    2017 lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software821. 1–26. 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 [Google Scholar]
  49. Ladd, Robert
    2008 Intonational phonology, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511808814
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808814 [Google Scholar]
  50. Lecumberri, María Luisa García
    1997 Traditional British analyses of intonation: a review. Atlantis191. 103–111.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Lee, Eun-Kyung, Jennifer Cole & Heejin Kim
    2006 Additive effects of phrase boundary on English accented vowels. Proceedings of the 3rd Speech Prosody Conference. Dresden, Germany. Paper 202. 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2006‑166
     https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2006-166 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lehiste, Ilse
    1970 Suprasegmentals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Mayo, Catherine, Matthew Aylett & D. Robert Ladd
    1997 Prosodic transcription of Glasgow English: an evaluation study of GlaToBI. Centre for Speech Technology Research, University of Edinburgh.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Mo, Yoonsook, Jennifer Cole & Mark Hasegawa-Johnson
    2009 Prosodic effects on vowel production: evidence from formant structure. Paper presented atInterspeech, 10th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Brighton.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Nolan, Francis
    2022 The rise and fall of the British school of intonation analysis. InJonathan Barnes & Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel (eds.) Prosodic Theory and Practice, 319–349. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0012
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
  56. O’Connor, J. D. & Gordon F. Arnold
    1968 Intonation of colloquial English: a practical handbook. London: Longmans.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. O’Grady, Gerard
    2013 Key concepts in phonetics and phonology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Pierrehumbert, Janet
    1980 The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Massachusetts: MIT PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Plag, Ingo, Gero Kunter & Mareile Schramm
    2011 Acoustic correlates of primary and secondary stress in North American English. Journal of Phonetics39(3). 362–374. 10.1016/j.wocn.2011.03.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2011.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  60. Russell, Lenth V.
    2023 emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.8.6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
  61. Schepman, Astrid, Robin Lickley & D. Robert Ladd
    2006 Effects of vowel length and “right context” on the alignment of Dutch nuclear accents. Journal of Phonetics341. 1–28. 10.1016/j.wocn.2005.01.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2005.01.004 [Google Scholar]
  62. Silverman, Kim E. A. & Janet B. Pierrehumbert
    2005 The timing of prenuclear high accents in English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America821. S19. 10.1121/1.2024693
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2024693 [Google Scholar]
  63. Silverman, Kim, Mary E. Beckman, John Pitrelli, Mari Ostendorf, Colin Wightman, Patti Price, Janet Pierrehumbert & Julia Hirschberg
    1992 TOBI: a standard for labeling English prosody. 2nd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 92). Banff, Alberta. 867–870. 10.21437/ICSLP.1992‑260
     https://doi.org/10.21437/ICSLP.1992-260 [Google Scholar]
  64. Steele, Shirley A.
    1986 Nuclear accent F0 peak location: effects of rate, vowel, and number of following syllables. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America801. S51. 10.1121/1.2023842
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2023842 [Google Scholar]
  65. Tabain, Marija
    2003 Effects of prosodic boundary on /aC/ sequences: articulatory results. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America1131. 2834–2849. 10.1121/1.1564013
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1564013 [Google Scholar]
  66. Tanner, James
    2023 Prosodic and durational influences on the formant dynamics of Japanese vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America Express Letters31. 085202. 10.1121/10.0020547
     https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0020547 [Google Scholar]
  67. Tench, Paul
    1988 The roles of intonation in English discourse. Peter Lang. New York.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 1996 The intonation systems of English. London: Cassell.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Turk, Alice E. & Laurence White
    1999 Structural influences on accentual lengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics271. 171–206. 10.1006/jpho.1999.0093
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1999.0093 [Google Scholar]
  70. Venditti, Jennifer
    1995 Japanese ToBI labeling guidelines. Ohio State University.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Verbeke, Gil & Wout Van Praet
    2025 Replication Data for: The interplay between prosodic prominence and boundary strength in the production of English checked steady-state vowels, DataverseNO, V1. 10.18710/QRXULF
     https://doi.org/10.18710/QRXULF [Google Scholar]
  72. Wickham, Hadley
    2016 ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑24277‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4 [Google Scholar]
  73. Wightman, Colin W., Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel, Mari Ostendorf & Patti J. Price
    1992 Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America911. 1707–1717. 10.1121/1.402450
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.402450 [Google Scholar]
  74. Wickham, H., Mara Averick, Jennifer Bryan, Winston Chang, Lucy D'Agostino McGowan, Romain François, Garrett Grolemund, Alex Hayes, Lionel Henry, Jim Hester, Max Kuhn, Thomas Lin Pedersen, Evan Miller, Stephan Milton Bache, Kirill Müller, Jeroen Ooms, David Robinson, Dana Paige Seidel, Vitalie Spinu, Kohske Takahashi, Davis Vaughan, Claus Wilke, Kara Woo & Hiroaki Yutani
    2019 “Welcome to the tidyverse”. Journal of Open Source Software4(43). 1686. 10.21105/joss.01686
     https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/etc.25005.ver
Loading
The interplay between prosodic prominence and boundary strength in the production of English checked steady-state vowels
English Text Construction 17, 262 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.25005.ver
/content/journals/10.1075/etc.25005.ver
/content/journals/10.1075/etc.25005.ver
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): nuclear tone approach; prosodic boundary strength; prosodic prominence; ToBI; vowel duration

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error