This study investigates the phonetic implementation of stress in American English compounds by measuring the interaction of stress cues with different intonation patterns. Participants in an experiment produced compounds and phrases such as greenhouse and green house in different prosodic positions and sentence types to elicit the contrast in a variety of intonational environments. Intonation patterns were labeled and carefully controlled for, and measurements of vowel duration, intensity (dB) and pitch (in semitones) were compared. The results of the experiment reveal clear patterns that distinguish compounds from phrases, and provide acoustic evidence of the characteristic prominence pattern for adjective + noun compounds. Intensity is a significant cue for compound stress in all but the rising intonation environments, such as questions. Duration differences are a reliable cue in exactly this intonational environment, and also in certain clause-final intonation patterns, which similarly contain a high boundary tone. Distinctive pitch patterns were also found. The results suggest that interactions with the intonational and prosodic environment determine which phonetic cues will signal the stress pattern of a compound in a given utterance.
AlkuP.VintturiJ.VilkmanE. (2002). Measuring the effect of fundamental frequency raising as a strategy for increasing vocal intensity in soft, normal and loud phonation. Speech Communication, 38, 321–334.
2.
BeckmanM. (1996). The parsing of prosody. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 17–67.
3.
BeckmanM.EdwardsG. A. (1994). Articulatory evidence for differentiating stress categories. In KeatingP. (Ed.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology 3 (pp. 7–33). New York: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BeckmanM.EdwardsG. A. (1997). Guidelines for ToBI labeling(Version 3). Ms., Ohio State University.
5.
BeckmanM.HirschbergJ. (1994). The ToBI Annotation Conventions. Ms., Ohio State University.
6.
BeckmanM.HirschbergJ.Shattuck-HufnagelS. (2005). The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In JunS. (Ed.), Prosodic typology (pp. 9–54). New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2006). Praat (Version 4.5.16). Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/
8.
Cambier-LangeveldT. (2000). Temporal marking of accents and boundaries. HIL Dissertations, 32. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
9.
CampbellN.BeckmanM. (1997). Stress, prominence, and spectral tilt. In BotinisA.KouroupetroglouG.CarayiannisG. (Eds.), Intonation: Theory, models and applications (pp. 67–70). Athens: ESCA.
10.
ChoT.KeatingP. (2001). Articulatory and acoustic studies on domain-initial strengthening in Korean. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 155–190.
11.
ChomskyN.HalleM. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row, Inc.
12.
de JongK.ZawaydehB. A. (1999). Stress, duration and intonation in Arabic word-level prosody. Journal of Phonetics, 27, 3–22.
13.
EwenC. J.van der HulstH. (2001). The phonological structure of words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
FarnetaniE.TorselloC. T.CosiP. (1988). English compound vs. non-compound noun phrases in discourse: An acoustic and perceptual study. Language and Speech, 31, 157–180.
15.
FougeronC.KeatingP. (1997). Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 3728–3740.
16.
FryD. B. (1958). Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech, 1, 126–152.
17.
GiegerichH. J. (1985). Metrical phonology and phonological structure. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18.
GiegerichH. J. (2004). Compound or phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion. English Language and Linguistics, 8, 1–24.
19.
GussenhovenC. (1991). The English rhythm rule as an accent deletion rule. Phonology, 8, 1–35.
20.
GussenhovenC. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
HalleM.VergnaudJ.-R. (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
HayesB. (1985). A metrical theory of stress rules. New York: Garland.
23.
HayesB. (1995). Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
ItoJ.MesterA. (2006). Prosodic adjunction in Japanese compounds. Proceedings of FAJL 4. Osaka, Japan. (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics)
25.
JunS. (2005). Prosodic typology. In JunS. (Ed.), Prosodic typology (pp. 430–458). New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
KabakB.VogelI. (2001). The phonological word and stress assignment in Turkish. Phonology, 18(3), 315–360.
27.
KeatingP.ChoT.FougeronC.HsuC. (2003). Domain-initial articulatory strengthening in four languages. In LocalJ.OgdenR.TempleR. (Eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology 6 (pp. 143–161). New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
KunterG. (2011). Compound stress in English: The phonetics and phonology of prosodic prominence. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.
29.
LaddD. R. (1984). English compound stress. In GibbonD.RichterH. (Eds.), Intonation, accent and rhythm: Studies in discourse phonology (pp. 253–267). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
30.
LaddD. R. (1996). Intonational phonology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
LibermanM.PrinceA. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(2), 249–336.
32.
LibermanM.SproatR. (1992). The stress and structure of modified noun phrases in English. In SagI. (Ed.), Lexical matters (pp. 131–181). CSLI Publications. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
NesporM. (1999). Stress domains. In van der HulstH. (Ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe (pp. 117–159). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
34.
NesporM.RalliA. (1996). Morphology-phonology interface: Phonological domains in Greek compounds. The Linguistic Review, 13, 357–382.
NolanF. (2003). Intonational equivalence: An experimental evaluation of pitch scales. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, Spain, 771–774.
37.
PierrehumbertJ. B. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
38.
PierrehumbertJ.LibermanM. (1984). Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In AronoffM.OehrleR. (Eds.), Language sound structure: Studies in phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
PlagI. (2006). The variability of compound stress in English: Structural, semantic and analogical factors. English Language and Linguistics, 10(1), 143–172.
40.
PlagI.KunterG.LappeS.BraunM. (2008). The role of semantics, argument structure, and lexicalization in compound stress assignment in English. Language, 84(4), 760–794.
41.
SelkirkE. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42.
SelkirkE. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 371–405.
43.
Shattuck-HufnagelS.TurkA. (1996). A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(2), 193–247.
44.
SluijterA. (1995). Phonetic correlates of stress and accent. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
45.
SyrdalA.McGoryJ. (2000). Inter-transcriber reliability of ToBI prosodic labeling. Paper presented at the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP), Beijing, China.
46.
TurkA.Shattuck-HufnagelS. (2000). Word-boundary related duration patterns in English. Journal of Phonetics, 28, 397–440.
47.
TurkA.WhiteL. (1999). Structural influences on accentual lengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics, 27, 171–206.
48.
VigárioM. (2003). The prosodic word in European Portuguese. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
49.
VischE. (1999). The rhythmic organization of compounds and phrases. In van der HulstH. (Ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe (chapter 3). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
50.
VogelI.RaimyE. (2002). The acquisition of compound vs. phrasal stress: The role of prosodic constituents. Journal of Child Language, 29, 225–250.
