Skip to content
Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton February 9, 2021

The extent and degree of utterance-final word lengthening in spontaneous speech from 10 languages

Frank Seifart ORCID logo, Jan Strunk ORCID logo, Swintha Danielsen, Iren Hartmann, Brigitte Pakendorf, Søren Wichmann, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich ORCID logo, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann ORCID logo and Balthasar Bickel
From the journal Linguistics Vanguard

Abstract

Words in utterance-final positions are often pronounced more slowly than utterance-medial words, as previous studies on individual languages have shown. This paper provides a systematic cross-linguistic comparison of relative durations of final and penultimate words in utterances in terms of the degree to which such words are lengthened. The study uses time-aligned corpora from 10 genealogically, areally, and culturally diverse languages, including eight small, under-resourced, and mostly endangered languages, as well as English and Dutch. Clear effects of lengthening words at the end of utterances are found in all 10 languages, but the degrees of lengthening vary. Languages also differ in the relative durations of words that precede utterance-final words. In languages with on average short words in terms of number of segments, these penultimate words are also lengthened. This suggests that lengthening extends backwards beyond the final word in these languages, but not in languages with on average longer words. Such typological patterns highlight the importance of examining prosodic phenomena in diverse language samples beyond the small set of majority languages most commonly investigated so far.


Corresponding author: Frank Seifart, Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin, Germany; Dynamique Du Langage (CNRS & Université de Lyon), Lyon, France; and University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany, E-mail:

Funding source: Volkswagen Foundation

Award Identifier / Grant number: 89 550

Funding source: LabEx ASLAN

Award Identifier / Grant number: ANR-10-LABX-0081

Award Identifier / Grant number: ANR-11-IDEX-0007

Funding source: Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek

Funding source: Russian Government

Acknowledgments

The research of FS and JS was supported by a grant from the Volkswagen Foundation’s Dokumentation Bedrohter Sprachen (DoBeS) program (89 550). FS and BP are grateful to the LABEX ASLAN (ANR-10-LABX-0081) of Université de Lyon for its financial support within the program “Investissements d’Avenir” (ANR-11-IDEX-0007) of the French government operated by the National Research Agency (ANR). SW’s research was supported by JPICH/NWO, a subsidy of the Russian Government to support the Programme of Competitive Development of Kazan Federal University, and a major project from National Social Science Fund of China (no. 19ZDA300). We are grateful for helpful comments from Susanne Fuchs, Oksana Rasskazova, Colleen O’Brien, and two anonymous reviewers.

References

Aylett, Matthew & Alice Turk. 2004. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 47(1). 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309040470010201.Search in Google Scholar

Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Benjamin M. Bolker & Steven C. Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.Search in Google Scholar

Bell, Alan, Jason M. Brenier, Michelle Gregory, Cynthia Girand & Dan Jurafsky. 2009. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 60(1). 92–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003.Search in Google Scholar

Bell, Alan, Daniel Jurafsky, Eric Fosler-Lussier, Cynthia Girand, Michelle Gregory & Daniel Gildea. 2003. Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113(2). 1001–1024. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1534836.Search in Google Scholar

Berkovits, Rochele. 1994. Durational effects in final lengthening, gapping, and contrastive stress. Language and Speech 37(3). 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099403700302.Search in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar, Sabine Stoll, Martin Gaenszle, Novel Kishore Rai, Elena Lieven, Goma Banjade, Toya Nath Bhatta, Netra Paudyal, Judith Pettigrew, Ichchha P. Rai & Manoj Rai. 2011. Audiovisual corpus of the Chintang language, including a longitudinal corpus of language acquisition by six children: Ca. 650,000 words transcribed and translated, of which ca. 450,000 glossed, plus paradigm sets and grammar sketches, ethnographic descriptions, photographs. Nijmegen: The Language Archive. (accessed 20 March 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Brysbaert, Marc & Boris New. 2009. Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods 41(4). 977–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977.Search in Google Scholar

Byrd, Dani, Jelena Krivokapić & Sungbok Lee. 2006. How far, how long: On the temporal scope of prosodic boundary effects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120(3). 1589–1599. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2217135.Search in Google Scholar

Byrd, Dani & Elliot Saltzman. 2003. The elastic phrase: Modeling the dynamics of boundary-adjacent lengthening. Journal of Phonetics 31(2). 149–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(02)00085-2.Search in Google Scholar

Cambier-Langeveld, Tina. 1997. The domain of final lengthening in the production of Dutch. In Helen de Hoop & Jane A. Coerts (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1997, vol. 14, 13–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.14.04cam.Search in Google Scholar

CGN-consortium, Language and Speech Nijmegen & ELIS Gent. 2003. Corpus Gesproken Nederlands. Nijmegen: Nederlandse Taalunie.Search in Google Scholar

Cho, Taehong. 2016. Prosodic boundary strengthening in the phonetics–prosody interface. Language and Linguistics Compass 10(3). 120–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12178.Search in Google Scholar

Cho, Taehong, Jiseung Kim & Sahyang Kim. 2013. Preboundary lengthening and preaccentual shortening across syllables in a trisyllabic word in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 133(5). EL384–EL390. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4800179.Search in Google Scholar

Danielsen, Swintha, Franziska Riedel, Femmy Admiraal & Lena Terhart. 2009. Baure documentation. Nijmegen: The Language Archive. (accessed 20 March 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Delattre, Pierre. 1966. A comparison of syllable length conditioning among languages. International Review of Applied Linguistics 7. 295–325. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1966.4.1-4.183.Search in Google Scholar

ELAN developers. 2019. ELAN (Version 5.7) [Computer software] (June 14, 2019). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, The Language Archive. (accessed 20 July 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Fletcher, Janet. 2010. The prosody of speech: Timing and rhythm. In William J. Hardcastle, John Laver & Fiona E. Gibbon (eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences, 2nd edn., 521–602. Chichester: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444317251.ch15.Search in Google Scholar

Godfrey, John J., Edward C. Holliman & Jane McDaniel. 1992. SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. ICASSP-92: 1992 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech, and signal processing, vol. 1, 517–520. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.1992.225858.Search in Google Scholar

Güldemann, Tom, Martina Ernszt, Sven Siegmund & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2011. A text documentation of Nǀuu. London: ELAR. (accessed 20 March 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Hakokari, Jussi, Tuomo Saarni, Tapio Salakoski, Jouni Isoaho & Olli Aaltonen. 2005. Determining prepausal lengthening for Finnish rule-based speech synthesis. Speech analysis, synthesis and recognition, applications of phonetics, September 19–23, 2005. Kraków, Poland: AGH University of Science and Technology.Search in Google Scholar

Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel & Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2018. Glottolog 3.3. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1321024. (accessed 20 March 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Hartmann, Iren. 2013. Hoocąk corpus. Leipzig: MPI-EVA.Search in Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1998. Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics 36(1). 161–195. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1998.36.1.161.Search in Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & D. Robert Ladd. 2008. Prosodic description: An introduction for fieldworkers. Language Documentation & Conservation 2(2). 244–274. (accessed 20 March 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., Meytal Sandler, Jan Strunk & Volker Unterladstetter. 2018. On the universality of intonational phrases: A cross-linguistic interrater study. Phonology 35(2). 207–245. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675718000039.Search in Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 2013. Penultimate lengthening in Bantu. In Balthasar Bickel, Lenore A. Grenoble, David A. Peterson & Alan Timberlake (eds.), Language typology and historical contingency. In honor of Johanna Nichols (Typological Studies in Language 104), 309–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Jun, Sun-Ah. 2014. Prosodic typology: By prominence type, word prosody, and macro-rhythm. In Sun-Ah Jun (ed.), Prosodic typology II: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 520–540. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Keating, Patricia, Taehong Cho, Cecile Fougeron & Chai-Shune Hsu. 2003. Domain-initial articulatory strengthening in four languages. In John Local, Richard Ogden & Rosalind Temple (eds.), Phonetic interpretation: Papers in laboratory phonology VI, 143–161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kisler, Thomas, Florian Schiel & Han Sloetjes. 2012. Signal processing via web services: The use case WebMAUS. In Proceedings of digital humanities 2012, 30–34. Hamburg.Search in Google Scholar

Liberman, Mark Y. 2019. Corpus phonetics. Annual Review of Linguistics 5(1). 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-033830.Search in Google Scholar

Lindblom, Björn. 1968. Temporal organization of syllable production. Speech transmission lab. Quarterly progress status report 2. 1–5.Search in Google Scholar

Lindblom, Björn. 1979. Final lengthening in speech and music. In Eva Gårding, Gösta Bruce & Robert Bannert (eds.), Nordic prosody (Travaux de l’Institut de Linguistique de Lund 13), 85–101. Lund: Lund University.Search in Google Scholar

Michelas, Amandine & Mariapaola D’Imperio. 2010. Durational cues and prosodic phrasing in French: Evidence for the intermediate phrase. In Proceedings of speech prosody 2010, paper 881. Chicago, USA. (accessed 20 March 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Nakai, Satsuki, Sari Kunnari, Alice Turk, Kari Suomi & Riikka Ylitalo. 2009. Utterance-final lengthening and quantity in Northern Finnish. Journal of Phonetics 37(1). 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2008.08.002.Search in Google Scholar

Oller, D. Kimbrough. 1979. Syllable timing in Spanish, English, and Finnish. In Harry Francis Hollien & Patricia Hollien (eds.), Current issues in the phonetic sciences: Proceedings of the IPS-77 congress, Miami Beach, Florida, 17–19th December 1977 (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series IV, Current issues in linguistic theory 9), 331–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.9.38oll.Search in Google Scholar

Ordin, Mikhail, Leona Polyanskaya, Itziar Laka & Marina Nespor. 2017. Cross-linguistic differences in the use of durational cues for the segmentation of a novel language. Memory & Cognition 45(5). 863–876. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0700-9.Search in Google Scholar

Pakendorf, Brigitte (ed.). 2007. Documentation of Sakha (Yakut). Leipzig: MPI-EVA.Search in Google Scholar

Pakendorf, Brigitte, Dejan Matić, Natalia Aralova & Alexandra Lavrillier. 2010. Documentation of the dialectal and cultural diversity among Ėvens in Siberia. Nijmegen, Leipzig: DOBES, MPIP, MPI-EVA.Search in Google Scholar

Piantadosi, Steven T., Harry Tily & Edward Gibson. 2011. Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(9). 3526–3529. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012551108.Search in Google Scholar

Plag, Ingo, Julia Homann & Gero Kunter. 2017. Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics 53(1). 181–216. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226715000183.Search in Google Scholar

R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (accessed 20 March 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Šavrič, Bojan, Tom Patterson & Bernhard Jenny. 2019. The equal earth map projection. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 33(3). 454–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2018.1504949.Search in Google Scholar

Seifart, Frank. 2009. Bora documentation. In Frank Seifart, Doris Fagua, Jürg Gasché & Juan Alvaro Echeverri (eds.), A multimedia documentation of the languages of the People of the Center. Online publication of transcribed and translated Bora, Ocaina, Nonuya, Resígaro, and Witoto audio and video recordings with linguistic and ethnographic annotations and descriptions. Nijmegen: The Language Archive. (accessed 20 March 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Seifart, Frank, Jan Strunk, Swintha Danielsen, Iren Hartmann, Brigitte Pakendorf, Søren Wichmann, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich, Nivja H. de Jong & Balthasar Bickel. 2018. Nouns slow down speech across structurally and culturally diverse languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115(22). 5720–5725. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800708115.Search in Google Scholar

Seyfarth, Scott. 2014. Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition 133(1). 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.013.Search in Google Scholar

Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie & Alice E. Turk. 1996. A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25(2). 193–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01708572.Search in Google Scholar

Sóskuthy, Márton & Jennifer Hay. 2017. Changing word usage predicts changing word durations in New Zealand English. Cognition 166. 298–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.032.Search in Google Scholar

Strunk, Jan, Florian Schiel & Frank Seifart. 2014. Untrained forced alignment of transcriptions and audio for language documentation corpora using WebMAUS. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Hrafn Loftsson, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds.), Proceedings of the ninth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2014), 3940–3947. Reykjavik: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). (accessed 20 March 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Strunk, Jan, Frank Seifart, Swintha Danielsen, Iren Hartmann, Brigitte Pakendorf, Søren Wichmann, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Balthasar Bickel. 2020. Determinants of phonetic word duration in ten language documentation corpora: Word frequency, complexity, position, and part of speech. Language Documentation & Conservation 14. 423–461. (accessed 20 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar

Tang, Kevin & Ryan Bennett. 2018. Contextual predictability influences word and morpheme duration in a morphologically complex language (Kaqchikel Mayan). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 144(2). 997–1017. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5046095.Search in Google Scholar

Turk, Alice E. & Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2000. Word-boundary-related duration patterns in English. Journal of Phonetics 28(4). 397–440. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2000.0123.Search in Google Scholar

Turk, Alice E. & Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2007. Multiple targets of phrase-final lengthening in American English words. Journal of Phonetics 35(4). 445–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2006.12.001.Search in Google Scholar

Turk, Alice E. & Laurence White. 1999. Structural influences on accentual lengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics 27(2). 171–206. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1999.0093.Search in Google Scholar

Vaissière, Jacqueline. 1983. Language-independent prosodic features. In Anne Cutler & D. Robert Ladd (eds.), Prosody: Models and measurements (Springer Series in Language and Communication 14), 53–66. Springer: Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69103-4_5.Search in Google Scholar

Wichmann, Søren. 1996. Cuentos y colorados en popoluca de Texistepec. Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzel.Search in Google Scholar

Wightman, Colin W., Stefanie Shattuck‐Hufnagel, Mari Ostendorf & Patti J. Price. 1992. Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 91(3). 1707–1717. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.402450.Search in Google Scholar

Yuan, Jiahong, Mark Liberman & Christopher Cieri. 2006. Towards an integrated understanding of speaking rate in conversation. Interspeech 2006, 541–544. (accessed 20 March 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Supplementary material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0063).

Received: 2019-11-27
Accepted: 2020-04-02
Published Online: 2021-02-09

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston