How far, how long: On the temporal scope of prosodic boundary effects

Abstract

Acoustic lengthening at prosodic boundaries is well explored, and the articulatory bases for this lengthening are becoming better understood. However, the temporal scope of prosodic boundary effects has not been examined in the articulatory domain. The few acoustic studies examining the distribution of lengthening indicate that boundary effects extend from one to three syllables before the boundary, and that effects diminish as distance from the boundary increases. This diminishment is consistent with the π-gesture model of prosodic influence [Byrd and Saltzman, J. Phonetics 31, 149-180 (2003)]. The present experiment tests the preboundary and postboundary scope of articulatory lengthening at an intonational phrase boundary. Movement-tracking data are used to evaluate durations of consonant closing and opening movements, acceleration durations, and consonant spatial magnitude. Results indicate that prosodic boundary effects exist locally near the phrase boundary in both directions, diminishing in magnitude more remotely for those subjects who exhibit extended effects. Small postboundary effects that are compensatory in direction are also observed.

Preboundary lengthening and preaccentual shortening across syllables in a trisyllabic word in English

“…Contrary to the previous assumption that preboundary lengthening can be extended to the non-final syllable only if the main stress falls on that syllable (Cambier-Langeveld, 1997;White, 2002;Turk and Shattuck-Hufnagel, 2007), the present study demonstrated that it can be extended even beyond the non-final stressed syllable to an unstressed first vowel. Furthermore, contrary to a common assumption that the magnitude of lengthening tends to be progressively weakened as the syllable is displaced farther away from the boundary (e.g., Byrd et al, 2006), it was found to be only partially true for the test word banana. The seemingly progressive attenuation of preboundary lengthening (V1 < V2 < V3) in absolute terms was not statistically supported in that no difference between V1 and V2 was found, and it became even less evident in relative terms (as measured by percentage increase).…”

“…One of the important issues regarding this process concerns its domain-i.e., how the preboundary lengthening is distributed across syllables in a phrase-final word (e.g., Kohler, 1983;Silverman, 1990;CambierLangeveld, 2000;White, 2002;Byrd et al, 2006;Turk and Shattuck-Hufnagel, 2007). In a small acoustic study in German, Silverman (1990) noted that phrase-final lengthening can be distributed over the entire phrase-final word, even to the left beyond the non-initial stressed syllable.…”

Stressed postverbal pronominals in Catalan

“…Word-final lengthening is a well-known cross-linguistic effect, and there is also evidence of cumulative lengthening in phrase-or utterance-final positions (Oller 1973;Wightman et al 1992; see Krivokapić 2014 for a review). Domain-final lengthening is found to extend to a longer span than simply the segment adjacent to the boundary, whereas domain-initial lengthening is said to be more local, usually affecting the initial segment only (Keating 2006;Cho and Keating 2009; but see Byrd et al 2006). The fact that the vowel in the postverbal pronominal element is the longest in condition 1 in both varieties is consistent with cumulative final lengthening -the pronominal is both word-and utterance-final in this condition.…”

Temporal organization of English clear and conversational speech

“…These modifications can all be viewed as involving changes from hypo-to hyperarticulation ͑H&H Theory, Lindblom, 1990͒ with respect to articulatory and acoustic features such as reduction of target undershoot and enhancement of phonemic contrasts as seen in, for instance, expanded vowel spaces and increased vowel length and consonant voicing contrasts. Articulatory studies of prominence and of prosodic structure showed that stressed and accented syllables and segments at phrase boundaries were produced with larger, less overlapped gestures and with larger linguapalatal contact ͑de Jong, 1995;Byrd and Saltzman, 2003;Byrd et al, 2000Byrd et al, , 2006Fougeron and Keating, 1997;Cho, 2006͒. In a more direct investigation of clear speech articulatory strategies, Perkell et al ͑2002͒ found that consonant-volwel-consonant ͑CVC͒ syllables in clear speech were produced with an increased articulatory effort ͑greater peak speed and larger articulatory movement distance͒ beyond increased segment durations for some talkers ͑intelligibility was not measured͒.…”