The Smooth Signal Redundancy Hypothesis: A Functional Explanation for Relationships between Redundancy,Prosodic Prominence,and Duration in Spontaneous Speech
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2004
The Smooth Signal Redundancy Hypothesis: A Functional Explanation for Relationships between Redundancy,Prosodic Prominence,and Duration in Spontaneous Speech
This paper explores two related factors which influence variation in duration, prosodic structure and redundancy in spontaneous speech. We argue that the constraint of producing robust communication while efficiently expending articulatory effort leads to an inverse relationship between language redundancy and duration. The inverse relationship improves communication robustness by spreading information more evenly across the speech signal, yielding a smoother signal redundancy profile.
We argue that prosodic prominence is a linguistic means of achieving smooth signal redundancy. Prosodic prominence increases syllable duration and coincides to a large extent with unpredictable sections of speech, and thus leads to a smoother signal redundancy.
The results of linear regressions carried out between measures of redundancy, syllable duration and prosodic structure in a large corpus of spontaneous speech confirm: (1) an inverse relationship between language redundancy and duration, and (2) a strong relationship between prosodic prominence and duration.
The fact that a large proportion of the variance predicted by language redundancy and prosodic prominence is nonunique suggests that, in English, prosodic prominence structure is the means with which constraints caused by a robust signal requirement are expressed in spontaneous speech.
Anderson, A.H., Bader, M., Bard, E.G., Boyle, E., Doherty-Sneddon, G.M., Garrod, S., Isard, S., Kowtko, J.C., McAllister, J.M., Miller, J.E., Sotillo, C.F., Thompson, H.S., & Weinert, R. (1991) The HCRC Map Task Corpus. Language and Speech, 34(4) 351-366.
2.
Aylett, M., & Bull, M. (1998). The automatic marking of prominence in spontaneous speech using duration and part of speech information. In Proceedings of ICSLP-98, 2123-2126.
3.
Aylett, M.P. (2000). Stochastic suprasegmentals: Relationships between redundancy, prosodic structure and care of articulation in spontaneous speech (http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/matthewa/thesissum.html ). Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.
4.
Baayen, R.H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania. Version 2.5.
5.
Balota, D., Boland, J., & Shields, L. (1989). Priming in pronunciation: Beyond pattern recognition and onset latency. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 14-36.
6.
Bard, E., & Aylett, M. (1999). The dissociation of deaccenting, givenness and syntactic role in spontaneous speech. In ICPhs99, 1753-1756.
7.
Beckman, M.E. (1986). Stress and non-stress accent. Dordrecht-Holland: Foris Publications.
8.
Beckman, M.E., & Ayers, G.M. (1993). Guideline for ToBI labelling. First edition.
9.
Beckman, M.E., & Edwards, J. (1990). Lengthening and shortenings and the nature of prosodic constituency. In J. Kingston & M. E. Beckman (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I (pp. 152-178). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Beckman, M.E., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1986). Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255-309.
11.
Bell, A., Gregory, M.L., Jurafsky, D., Girard, C., Brenier, J., & Ikeno, A. (2002). Which predictability measures affect content word durations? In PMLA ICSLP Workshop.
12.
Booij, G. (1995). The phonology of Dutch. Clarendon Press.
Campbell, W.N., & Isard, S.D. (1991). Segment durations in a syllable frame. Journal of Phonetics, 19, 37-47.
15.
Clarkson, P., & Rosenfeld, R. (1997). Statistical language modeling using the CMUCambridge toolkit. In Proceedings of Eurospeech 97, 2707-2710.
16.
Cruttenden, A. (1986). Intonation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Cutler, A., & Carter, D. (1987). The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary. Computer Speech and Language, 2, 133-142.
18.
Fidelholtz, J. (1975). Word frequency and vowel reduction in English . In CLS75, 200-213.
19.
Fougeron, C., & Keating, P. (1997). Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America , 101, 6, 3728-3740.
20.
Fowler, C.A., & Housum, J. (1987). Talkers' signaling of "New" and "Old" words in speech and listeners' perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 489-504.
21.
Fowler, C.A., Levy, E.T., & Brown, J.M. (1997). Reduction of spoken words in certain discourse contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 24-40.
22.
Fry, D. ( 1955). Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 765-768.
23.
Goldinger, S., & W. Summers (1989). Lexical neighborhoods in speech production: A first report. Research on Speech Perception Progress Report. Psychology Department, Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University, 15, 331 -342.
24.
Hunnicut, S. (1985). Intelligibility versus redundancy-conditions of dependency. Language and Speech, 28, 45-56.
25.
Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., & Raymond, W. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229 - 254). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Ladd, D., & Campbell, N. (1991). Theories of prosodic structure: Evidence from syllable duration. In Proceedings of the XIIth International Conference on Phonetic Sciences, 2, 290-293.
28.
Ladefoged, P. (1982). AUC course in phonetics. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 2nd edition.
29.
Lieberman, P. (1963). Some effects of semantic and grammatical context on the production and perception of speech. Language and Speech , 6, 172-187.
30.
Lindblom, B. (1967). Vowel duration and a model of lip mandible coordination. Speech Transmission Laboratory-Quarterly Progress and Status Report, Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT, Cambridge, 4, 1-29.
31.
Mayo, C., Aylett, M., & Ladd, D. (1997). Prosodic transcription of Glasgow English: An evaluation study of GlaToBI. In A. Botinis , G. Kouroupetroglou, & G. Carayiannis (Eds.), Proceedings of the ESCA Intonation Workshop (pp. 231-234). ESCA.
32.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M.H. (1990). Applied linear statistical models: Regression, analysis of variance and experimental design (3rd ed.). Boston: Irwin.
33.
Pan, S., & Hirschberg, J. (2000). Modeling local context for pitch accent prediction. Proceedings of the ACL 2000, ACL, Hong Kong, 233-240.
34.
Pierce, J.R. (1961). Symbols, signals and noise: The nature and process of communication. New York: Harper .
35.
Pisoni, D., Nusbaum, H., Luce, P., & Slowiaczek, L. (1985). Speech perception, word recognition, and the structure of the lexicon. Speech Communication , 4, 75-95.
36.
Samual, A.G., & Troicki, M. (1998). Articulation control is inversely related to redundancy when children or adults have verbal control. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 175-194.
37.
Santen, J. van (1998). Chapter 5: Timing. In R. Sproat (Ed.), Multilingual text-to-speech synthesis (pp. 115-139). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
38.
Selkirk, E. (1978). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In T. Fretheim (Ed.), Nordic prosody II. Trondheim: TAPIR .
39.
Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379-423; 623-656.
40.
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., & Turk, A.E. (1996). A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research , 25, 193-247.
41.
Sluijter, A. (1995). Phonetic correlates of stress and accent. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
42.
Sotillo, C.F. (1997). Phonological reduction and intelligibility in task-oriented dialog. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh .
43.
Turk,A., & White, L. (1999). Structural influences on accentual lengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics, 27, 171-206.
44.
Turk,A.E., & Sawusch, J.R. (1997). The domain of accentual lengthening inAmerican English. Journal of Phonetics, 25, 25-41.
45.
Wightman, C., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., Ostendorf, M., & Price, P. (1992). Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91, 1707-1717.
46.
Wright, R. (1997). Lexical competition and reduction in speech: A preliminary report. Progress Report, Indiana University, 21, 471-485.
