Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics Vanguard

A Multimodal Journal for the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Bergs, Alexander / Cohn, Abigail C. / Good, Jeff

Online
ISSN
2199-174X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Methodological issues in the study of word stress correlates

Timo Roettger / Matthew Gordon
Published Online: 2017-08-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0006

Abstract:

The investigation of acoustic correlates of word stress is a prominent area of research. The literature is rife with studies of the acoustic exponents of what is often referred to as stress but the methodological diversity of this research has created an unclear picture of the properties robustly associated with it. The present paper explores the methodological issues involved in examining word stress correlates with the goal of proposing a set of recommendations for future research. Based on a survey of 110 (sub-) studies on 75 languages, desiderata for research on the acoustics of stress are identified: descriptions of employed methods should be as detailed as possible, speech material should be designed to allow for teasing apart word level stress from phrase level prominence, and sample sizes should be chosen according to statistical considerations.

Keywords: word stress; phonetics; phonology; typology

References

  • Adisasmito-Smith, Niken and Abigail C. Cohn. 1996. Phonetic correlates of primary and secondary stress in Indonesian: A preliminary study. Working papers of the Cornell phonetics laboratory 11. 1–16.Google Scholar

  • Astruc, Lluïsa & Pilar Prieto. 2006. Acoustic cues of stress and accent in Catalan. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Speech Prosody, Dresden, Germany.Google Scholar

  • Beckman, Mary. 1986. Stress and non-stress accent. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

  • Beckman, Mary. 1997. A typology of spontaneous speech. In Yoshinori Sagisaka, Nick Campbell & Norio Higuchi (eds.), Computing prosody: Computational models for processing spontaneous speech, 7–26. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar

  • Beckman, Mary and Jan Edwards. 1990. Lengthenings and shortenings and the nature of prosodic constituency. In John Kingston & Mary Beckman (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I, 179–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Beckman, Mary & Janet Pierrehumbert. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3. 255–309.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berkovits, Rochele. 1991. The effect of speaking rate on evidence for utterance-final lengthening. Phonetica 48. 57–66.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bolinger, Dwight L. 1958. A theory of pitch accent in English. Word 14. 109–149.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bolinger, Dwight L. 1961. Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Language 37(1). 83–96.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bowern, Claire. 2008. Linguistic fieldwork: A practical guide. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Bruce, Gösta. 1982. Developing the Swedish intonation model. Lund University, Dept. of Linguistics Working Papers 22. 51–116.Google Scholar

  • Butcher, Andy. 2013. Research methods in phonetic fieldwork. In Mark Jones & Rachael-Anne Knight (eds.), The bloomsbury companion to phonetics, 57–78. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Caldecott, Marian. 2009. Non-exhaustive parsing: Phonetic and phonological evidence from St’át’imcets. University of British Columbia. Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Chelliah, Shobhana & Willem De Reuse. 2011. Handbook of descriptive linguistic fieldwork. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Chian, Wen-yu & Fang-mei Chiang. 2005. Saisiyat as a pitch accent language: Evidence from acoustic study of words. Oceanic Linguistics 44. 404–426.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cho, Taehong. 2005. Prosodic strengthening and featural enhancement: Evidence from acoustic and articulatory realizations of /a,i/in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117. 3867–3878.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cho, Taehong. 2006. An acoustic study of the stress and intonational system in Lakhota: A preliminary report. Speech Sciences 13. 23–42. (Published by The Korean Association of Speech Sciences).Google Scholar

  • Cho, Taehong and Sun-Ah Jun. 2000. Domain-initial strengthening as featural enhancement: Aerodynamic evidence from Korean. Chicago Linguistics Society 36. 31–44.Google Scholar

  • Cho, Taehong and Patricia Keating. 2009. Effects of initial position versus prominence in English. Journal of Phonetics 37. 466–485.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cho, Taehong and James McQueen. 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

  • Choi, Hansook. 2003. Prosody-induced acoustic variation in English stop consonants. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, Spain, 2661–2664.Google Scholar

  • Clark, Herbert H. 1973. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12. 335–359.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cole, Jennifer, Hansook Choi, Heejin Kim & Mark Hasegawa-Johnson. 2003. The effect of accent on the acoustic cues to stop voicing in Radio News speech. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, Spain. 2665−2668.Google Scholar

  • Cooper, A. 1991. Glottal gestures and aspiration in English. PhD dissertation Yale University .Google Scholar

  • Cooper, William E., Stephen J. Eady & Pamela R Mueller. 1985. Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question-answer contexts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77. 2142–2156.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Crosswhite, Katherine. 2003. Spectral tilt as a cue to word stress in Polish, Macedonian, and Bulgarian. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, Spain, 767–770.Google Scholar

  • De Jong, Kenneth & Bushra Adnan Zawaydeh. 1999. Stress, duration, and intonation in Arabic word-level prosody. Journal of Phonetics 27. 3–22.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Edwards, Jan, Mary Beckman & Janet Fletcher. 1991. The articulatory kinematics of final lengthening. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 89. 369–382.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Everett, Keren. 1998. The acoustic correlates of stress in Pirahã. Journal of Amazonian Languages 1(2). 104–162.Google Scholar

  • Féry, Caroline & Frank Kügler. 2008. Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. Journal of Phonetics 36. 680–703.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fry, Dennis B. 1955. Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27. 765–768.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fry, Dennis B. 1958. Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech 1. 120–152.Google Scholar

  • Goedemans, Rob & Ellen van Zanten. 2007. Stress and accent in Indonesian. LOT Occasional series 9. 35–62.Google Scholar

  • Gonzalez, Andrew. 1970. Acoustic correlates of accent, rhythm, and intonation in Tagalog. Phonetica 22. 11–44.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gordon, Matthew. 2003. The phonology of pitch accent placement in Chickasaw. Phonology 20. 173–218.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gordon, Matthew. 2014. Disentangling stress and pitch accent: Toward a typology of prominence at different prosodic levels. In Henry van der Hulst (eds.), Word stress: Theoretical and typological issues, 83–118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gordon, Matthew & Ayla Applebaum. 2010. Acoustic correlates of stress in Turkish Kabardian. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 40. 35–58.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gordon, Matthew & Latifa Nafi. 2012. The acoustic correlates of stress and pitch accent in Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal of Phonetics 40. 706–724.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gordon, Matthew & Timo B. Roettger. This issue. Acoustic correlates of word stress: A cross-linguistic survey.Google Scholar

  • Grice, Martine, Stefan Baumann & Ralf Benzmüller. 2005b. German intonation in autosegmental-metrical phonology. In Sun-Ah Jun (eds.), Prosodic typology – The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 55–83. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Grice, Martine, Mariapaola D’Imperio, Michelina Savino & Cinzia Avesani. 2005a. A strategy for intonation labelling varieties of Italian. In Sun-Ah Jun (eds.), Prosodic typology – The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 362–389. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Guion, Susan, Jonathan D. Amith, Christopher S. Doty & Irina A. Shport. 2010. Word-level prosody in Balsas Nahuatl: The origin, development, and acoustic correlates of tone in a stress accent language. Journal of Phonetics 38. 137–166.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gussenhoven, Carlos & A. C. M. Rietveld. 1992. Intonation contours, prosodic structure and preboundary lengthening. Journal of Phonetics 20. 283–303.Google Scholar

  • Hargus, Sharon & Virginia Beavert. 2006. A note on the phonetic correlates of stress in Yakima Sahaptin. University of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics 24. 64–95.Google Scholar

  • Harrington, Jonathan, Janet Fletcher & Mary Beckman. 2000. Manner and place conflicts in the articulation of accent in Australian English. In Michael B. Broe & Janet Pierrehumbert (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology V: Language acquisition and the lexicon, 40–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hayes, Bruce & Aditi Lahiri. 1991. Bengali intonational phonology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9. 47–96.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hintz, Diane. 2006. Stress in South Conchucos Quechua: A phonetic and phonological study. International Journal of American Linguistics 72. 477–521.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Huss, Volker. 1978. English word stress in the post-nuclear position. Phonetica 35. 86–105.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Judd, Charles M., Jacob Westfall & David A. Kenny. 2012. Treating stimuli as random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103. 54–69.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jun, Sun-Ah. 1993. The phonetics and phonology of Korean Prosody. PhD Dissertation Ohio State University.Google Scholar

  • Jun, Sun-Ah. 2005. Korean intonational phonology and prosodic transcription. In Sun-Ah Jun (ed.), Prosodic typology – The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 201–229. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kanerva, J. 1990. Focus and phrasing in Chichewa phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

  • Kirby, James & Morgan Sonderegger. in press. Model selection and phonological argumentation. In Diane Brentari & Jackson Lee (eds.), Shaping phonology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ladefoged, Peter. 1997. Instrumental techniques for phonetic fieldwork. In William Hardcastle & John Laver (eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences, 137–166. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Ladefoged, Peter. 2003. Phonetic data analysis: An introduction to fieldwork and instrumental techniques. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Lee, Yong-cheol & Yi Xu. 2010. Phonetic realization of contrastive focus in Korean. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Speech Prosody, Chicago.Google Scholar

  • Lehiste, Ilse. 1966. Consonant quantity and phonological units in Estonian. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lehiste, Ilse, Pire Teras, Valts Ernštreits, Pärtel Lippus, Karl Pajusalu, Tuuli Tuisk & Tiit-Rein Viitso. 2008. Livonian Prosody. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 255).Google Scholar

  • Lehiste, Ilse, Pire Teras, Toomas Help, Pärtel Lippus, Einar Meister, Karl Pajusalu & Tiit-Rein Vittso. 2005. Meadow Mari Prosody (Linguistica Uralic Supplementary Series 2) Tallinn: Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastus.Google Scholar

  • Lesho, Marivic. 2013. The sociophonetics and phonology of the cavite chabacano vowel system The Ohio State University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Levi, Susannah V. 2005. Acoustic correlates of lexical accent in Turkish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35. 73–97.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lieberman, Philip. 1960. Some acoustic correlates of word stress in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 32. 451–454.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Maddieson, Ian. 2001. Phonetic fieldwork. In Paul Newman & Martha Ratliff (eds.), Linguistic fieldwork, 211–229. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar

  • Meyer, Roland & Ine Mleinek. 2006. How prosody signals force and focus: A study of pitch accents in Russian yes–no questions. Journal of Pragmatics 38. 1615–1635.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Moroz, George. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lingtypology 2017. Lingtypology: Linguistic typology and mapping.

  • Ortega-Llebaria, Marta. 2006. Phonetic cues to stress and accent in Spanish. Selected Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonetics and Phonology, 104–118.Google Scholar

  • Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. PhD Dissertation MIT.Google Scholar

  • Pierrehumbert, Janet and David Talkin. 1992. Lenition of /h/and glottal stop. In Gerard Docherty & D. Robert Ladd (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology II: Gesture, segment, prosody, 90–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Plag, Ingo, Gero Kunter & Mareile Schramm. 2011. Acoustic correlates of primary and secondary stress in North American English. Journal of Phonetics 39. 362–374.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pycha, Anne. 2006. A duration-based solution to the problem of stress realization in Turkish. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Reports.Google Scholar

  • R Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar

  • Riviera-Castillo, Yolanda & Lucy Pickering. 2004. Phonetic correlates of stress and tone in a mixed system. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 19(2). 261–284.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Roettger, Timo B. accepted. Tonal placement in Tashlhiyt Berber – How an intonation system accommodates to adverse phonological environments. Studies in Laboratory Phonology. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar

  • Roettger, Timo B., Anna Bruggeman & Grice. Martine. 2015. Word stress in Tashlhiyt – Postlexical prominence in disguise. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Hong Kong.Google Scholar

  • Sadat-Tehrani, Nima. 2008. The structure of Persian intonation. Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Speech Prosody, Campinas, Brazil, 249–252.Google Scholar

  • Sadeghi, Vahid. 2011. Acoustic correlates of lexical stress in Persian. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Hong Kong, 1738–1741.Google Scholar

  • Silber-Varod, Vered, Hagit Sagi & Noam Amir. 2016. The acoustic correlates of lexical stress in Israeli Hebrew. Journal of Phonetics 56. 1–14.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Simard, Candide, Claudia Wegener, Albert Lee & Connor Youngberg. 2014. Savosavo word stress: A quantitative analysis. Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Speech Prosody, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar

  • Sluijter, Agaath M. C. & Vincent J. Van Heuven. 1996. Spectral balance as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100. 2471–2485.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tuomainen, Jyrki, Stefan Werner, Jean Vroomen & Beatrice De Gelder. 1999. Fundamental frequency is an important acoustic cue to word boundaries in spoken Finnish. Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco, 921–923.Google Scholar

  • Turk, Alice & Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2007. Phrase-final lengthening in American English. Journal of Phonetics 35. 445–472.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Vasishth, Shravan & Bruno Nicenboim. 2016. Statistical methods for linguistic research: Foundational ideas – part I. Language and Linguistics Compass 10(8). 349–369. DOI:.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Vogel, Irene, Angeliki Athanasopoulou & Nadia Pinkus. 2016. Prominence, contrast, and the functional load hypothesis: An acoustic investigation. In Jeffrey Heinz, Rob Goedemans & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), Dimensions of phonological stress, 123–167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Wang, Bei, Ling Wang & Tursun Kadir. 2011. Prosodic encoding of focus in six languages in China. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Hong Kong.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 92. 1707–1717.Google Scholar

  • Winter, Bodo. 2011. Pseudoreplication in phonetic research. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Science, Hong Kong. 2137−2140.Google Scholar

  • Xu, Yi. 2010. In defense of lab speech. Journal of Phonetics 38(3). 329–336.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Yakup, Mahire & Joan Sereno. 2016. Acoustic correlates of lexical stress in Uyghur. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 46. 61–77.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-03-07

Accepted: 2017-04-26

Published Online: 2017-08-08


Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, Volume 3, Issue 1, 20170006, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2017-0006.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Nuria Sagarra and Joseph V. Casillas
Journal of Second Language Studies, 2018, Volume 1, Number 1

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in