Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T12:05:18.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Locality interactions with prominence in determining the scope of phrasal lengthening

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2008

Dani Byrd  and
Daylen Riggs
Dani Byrd
Affiliation:
University of Southern Californiadbyrd@usc.edu, daylenri@usc.edu
Daylen Riggs
Affiliation:
University of Southern Californiadbyrd@usc.edu, daylenri@usc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Temporal lengthening of gestures and segments located in a boundary-adjacent syllable has been found in both pre- and postboundary contexts. However, the temporal extent or scope of this lengthening, particularly in the articulatory domain, is not well described. We address the question of scope of prosodic lengthening by considering specifically whether prominence interacts with boundary-related articulatory lengthening in such a way that prominent elements not immediately at a phrase edge are lengthened relative to the same prominent elements phrase-medially (i.e. at a considerable distance from a boundary). Articulatory kinematic data were collected for three subjects to analyze consonant constrictions of prominent syllables located (1) either immediately before or after a boundary and (2) two and three syllables away from that boundary. The results indicate that, as expected, gestures undergo prosodic lengthening when immediately local to the phase boundary. However, some subjects did display prosodic lengthening at a small remove from the boundary for a prominent syllable. This effect was strongest in the postboundary condition. These results suggest that a consideration of prominence may be relevant in understanding the temporal patterning of boundary-related articulatory lengthening.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , August 2008 , pp. 187 - 202
Copyright
Copyright © Journal of the International Phonetic Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beckman, Mary E. & Edwards, Jan. 1992. Intonational categories and the articulatory control of duration. In Tohkura, Yoh'ichi, Vatikiotis-Bateson, Eric & Sagisaka, Yoshinori (eds.), Speech perception, production and linguistics structure, 359–375. Tokyo: Ohmsha.Google Scholar
Berkovits, Rochele. 1993a. Progressive utterance-final lengthening in syllables with final fricatives. Language and Speech 36, 89–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berkovits, Rochele. 1993b. Utterance-final lengthening and the duration of final-stop closures. Journal of Phonetics 21, 479–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkovits, Rochele. 1994. Durational effects in final lengthening, gapping, and contrastive stress. Language and Speech 37, 237–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browman, Catherine & Goldstein, Louis. 1992. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica 49, 155–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrd, Dani. 2000. Articulatory vowel lengthening and coordination at phrasal junctures. Phonetica 57, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrd, Dani & Choi, Susie. To appear. At the juncture of prosody, phonology, and phonetics: The interaction of phrasal and syllable structure in shaping the timing of consonant gestures. Papers in Laboratory Phonology 10, Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Byrd, Dani & Fukaya, Teruhiko. 2005. An articulatory examination of word-final flapping at phrase-edges and interiors. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35(1), 45–58.Google Scholar
Byrd, Dani, Kaun, Abigail, Narayanan, Shrikanth & Saltzman, Elliot. 2000. Phrasal signatures in articulation. In Broe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.), Acquisition and the lexicon (Papers in Laboratory Phonology V). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 70–87.Google Scholar
Byrd, Dani, Krivokapić, Jelena & Lee, Sungbok. 2006. How far, how long: On the temporal scope of prosodic boundary effects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120, 1589–1599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrd, Dani & Saltzman, Elliot. 1998. Intragestural dynamics of multiple phrasal boundaries. Journal of Phonetics 26, 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, Dani, Lee, Sungbok, Riggs, Daylen & Adams, Jason. 2005. Interacting effects of syllable and phrase position on consonant articulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118, 3860–3873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cambier-Langeveld, Tina. 1997. The domain of final lengthening in the production of Dutch. In Coerts, Janet & Hoop, Helen de (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1997, 13–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cho, Taehong. 2004. Prosodically conditioned strengthening and vowel-to-vowel coarticuation in English. Journal of Phonetics 32, 141–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, Taehong. 2006. Manifestation of prosodic structure in articulation: Evidence from lip movement kinematics in English. In Goldstein, Louis, Whalen, D. H. & Best, Catherine T. (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 8: Varieties of phonological competence (Phonetics and Phonology), 519–548. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, Taehong & Keating, Patricia. 2001. Articulatory and acoustic studies on domain-initial strengthening in Korean. Journal of Phonetics 29, 155–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, Taehong & McQueen, James M.. 2005. Prosodic influences on consonant production in Dutch: Effects of prosodic boundaries, phrasal accent and lexical stress. Journal of Phonetics 33, 121–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Jan, Beckman, Mary E. & Fletcher, Janet. 1991. The articulatory kinematics of final lengthening. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 89, 369–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fougeron, Cécile. 2001. Articulatory properties of initial segments in several prosodic constituents in French. Journal of Phonetics 29, 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fougeron, Cécile & Keating, Patricia. 1997. Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101, 3728–3740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldstein, Louis, Byrd, Dani & Saltzman, Elliot. 2006. The role of vocal tract gestural action units in understanding the evolution of phonology. In Arbib, Michael (ed.), Action to language via the Mirror Neuron System, 215–249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, Pat, Cho, Taehong, Fougeron, Cécile & Hsu, Chai-Shune. 2004. Domain-initial articulatory strengthening in four languages. In Local, John, Ogden, Richard & Temple, Ros (eds.), Phonetic interpretation (Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI), 143–161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klatt, Dennis. 1976. Linguistics uses of segmental duration in English: Acoustic and perceptual evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 59, 1208–1221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krivokapić, Jelena. 2007a. Prosodic planning: Effects of phrasal length and complexity on pause duration. Journal of Phonetics 35 (2), 162–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krivokapić, Jelena. 2007b. The planning, production, and perception of prosodic structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California. http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jk736/KrivokapicDissertation.pdf (7 March 2008).Google Scholar
Lee, Sungbok, Byrd, Dani & Krivokapić, Jelena. 2006 Functional data analysis of prosodic effects on articulatory timing. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119, 1666–1671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Löfqvist, Anders, Gracco, Vincent & Nye, Patrick. 1993. Recording speech movements using magnetmetry: One laboratory's experience. Forschungsberichte des Instituts für Phonetik und Sprachliche Kommunikation der Universität München 31, 143–162Google Scholar
Oller, D. Kimbrough. 1973. The effect of position in utterance on speech segment duration in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 54, 1235–1247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie & Turk, Alice. 1998. The domain of phrase-final lengthening in English. The sound of the future: A global view of acoustics in the 21st century (The 16th International Congress on Acoustics and 135th Meeting Acoustical Society of America), 1235–1236.Google Scholar
Tabain, Marija. 2003. Effects of prosodic boundary on /aC/ sequences: Articulatory results. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113, 2834–2849.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turk, Alice E. 1999. Structural influences on boundary-related lengthening in English. In Ohala, Jamal J., Hasegawa, Yoko, Ohala, Manjari, Granville, Daniel & Bailey, Ashley C. (eds.), The 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco, 237–240. Berkeley, CA: The Regents of the University of California.Google Scholar
Turk, Alice E. & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 2007. Multiple targets of phrase-final lengthening in American English words. Journal of Phonetics 35, 445–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wightman, Colin W., Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie, Ostendorf, Mari & Price, Patti J.. 1992. Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 91, 1707–1717.Google Scholar