It has frequently been shown that speakers prosodically reduce repeated words in discourse. This phenomenon has been claimed to facilitate speech recognition and to be language universal. In particular, the relationship between the information value of a word in a discourse context and its prosodic prominence have been shown to correlate. However, a literature review provided in this paper reveals that most evidence comes from English, where prosodic marking of information status often coincides with repetition reduction. The current study investigates to what extent repetition reduction occurs in Papuan Malay, spoken in the western part of the island of New Guinea (Indonesia). The work on Papuan Malay prosody available to date suggests fundamental differences compared to English and other Germanic languages. An acoustic analysis is carried out on repeated words in short stories produced by native Papuan Malay speakers. The results show that upon repetition, words were shortened and produced with higher F0. In a subsequent word identification task, it was found that first and second mentions were equally intelligible. Conclusions partially confirm previous work and challenge theories on how the prosody and information value of a word are related.
AndersonA. H.HowarthB. (2002). Referential form and word duration in video-mediated and face-to-face dialogues. In BosJ.FosterM. E.MathesonC. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (pp. 13–20). Edinburgh, UK: Cognitive Science Centre, University of Edinburgh.
2.
AylettM.TurkA. (2004). The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47, 31–56.
3.
BakerR. E.BradlowA. R. (2009). Variability in word duration as a function of probability, speech style, and prosody. Language and Speech, 52, 391–413.
4.
BardE. G.AndersonA. H.SotilloC.AylettM.Doherty-SneddonG.NewlandsA. (2000). Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 1–22.
5.
BardE. G.LoweA.AltmannG. (1989). The effects of repetition on words in recorded dictations. In TubachJ.MarianiJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of EUROSPEECH-1989: First European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (pp. 573–576). Paris, France: European Speech Communication Association.
6.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
7.
BaumannS.RöhrC.T. (2015). The perceptual prominence of pitch accent types in German. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 298, 1–5. Glasgow, UK: The University of Glasgow.
8.
BaumannS.WinterB. (2018). What makes a word prominent? Predicting untrained German listeners’ perceptual judgments. Journal of Phonetics, 70, 20–38.
9.
BellA.BrenierJ. M.GregoryM. L.GirandC.JurafskyD. (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 92–111.
10.
BoersmaP.WeeninkD. (2017). Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Computer program, v. 6.0.28. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/.
11.
BreckenridgeJ. (1977). The declination effect. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 61(S1), S90.
12.
BurdinR. S.Phillips-BourassS.TurnbullR.YasavulM.ClopperC. G.TonhauserJ. (2015). Variation in the prosody of focus in head- and edge-marking languages. Lingua, 165(B), 254–276.
13.
ChafeW. L. (1980). The Pear Stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
14.
ChafeW. L. (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
15.
ClarkH. H.Wilkes-GibbsD. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39.
16.
de VriesL. (2005). Towards a typology of tail–head linkage in Papuan languages. Studies in Language, 29, 363–384.
17.
ElliottD.HansenS.MendozaJ.TremblayL. (2004). Learning to optimize speed, accuracy, and energy expenditure: A framework for understanding speed-accuracy relations in goal-directed aiming. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36(3), 339–351.
18.
FiedlerIJannedyS. (2013). Prosody of focus marking in Ewe. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 34, 1–46.
19.
FowlerC. A. (1988). Differential shortening of repeated content words produced in various communicative contexts. Language and Speech, 31, 307–319.
20.
FowlerC. A.HousumJ. (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.
FowlerC. A.LevyE. T.BrownJ. M. (1997). Reductions of spoken words in certain discourse contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 37 (1), 24–40.
22.
GahlS.YaoY.JohnsonK. (2012). Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 789–806.
23.
GoedemansR. W. N.Van ZantenE. (2007). Stress and accent in Indonesian. In van HeuvenV. J.van ZantenE. (Eds.), Prosody in Austronesian Languages of Indonesia (pp. 35–62). Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT.
24.
GordonM. (2014). Disentangling stress and pitch accent: Toward a typology of prominence at different prosodic levels. In van der HulstH. (Ed.), Word Stress: theoretical and typological issues (pp. 83–118). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25.
HammarströmH.ForkelR.HaspelmathM. (2017). Glottolog 3.0. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. Retrieved from http://glottolog.org/.
26.
HansonH. M. (2009). Effects of obstruent consonants on fundamental frequency at vowel onset in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 425–441.
27.
HenrichJ.HeineS.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.
28.
HimmelmannN. P. (2018). Some preliminary observations on prosody and information structure in Austronesian languages of Indonesia and East Timor. In RiesbergS.ShioharaA.UtsumiA. (Eds.), A Cross-linguistic Perspective on Information Structure in Austronesian Languages, 347–374. Berlin, Germany: Language Science Press.
29.
HimmelmannN. P.SandlerM.StrunkJ.UnterladstetterV. (2018). On the robustness of intonational phrases in spontaneous speech: A crosslinguistic interrater study. Phonology, 35, 207–245.
30.
HoetjesM.KoolenR.GoudbeekM.KrahmerE.SwertsM. (2015). Reduction in gesture during the production of repeated references. Journal of Memory and Language, 79–80, 1–17.
31.
IivonenA.SeppänenT.NoponenK.ToivanenJ. (2009). Micro-prosodic consonantal effects on macro-intonation. In VainioM.AulankoR.AaltonenO. (Eds.), Proceedings of Nordic Prosody 2008 (pp. 107–116). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
32.
JacobsC. L.YiuL. K.WatsonD. G.DellG. S. (2015). Why are repeated words produced with reduced durations? Evidence from inner speech and homophone production. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 37–48.
33.
JurafskyD.BellA.GregoryM.RaymondW. D. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In BybeeJ.HopperP. (Eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (pp. 229–254). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.
34.
KahnJ. M.ArnoldJ. E. (2015). Articulatory and lexical repetition effects on durational reduction: Speaker experience vs. common ground. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 103–119.
35.
KalandC.C.L. (2018). Spectral tilt as a correlate of Papuan Malay word stress. In KlessaK.BachanJ.WagnerA.KarpińskiM.ŚledzińskiD. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Speech Prosody (pp. 339–343). Poznań, Poland.
36.
KalandC.C.L.BracksC.HimmelmannN.P. (2018) Repetition reduction in Papuan Malay prosody. In KlessaK.BachanJ.WagnerA.KarpińskiM.ŚledzińskiD. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Speech ProsodyPoznań, Poland (pp. 10–14).
37.
KaufmanD.HimmelmannN.P. (accepted). Austronesia. In GussenhovenC.ChenA. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Prosody (ch. 30). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
38.
KhanM. A.FranksI. M.GoodmanD. (1998). The effect of practice on the control of rapid aiming movements: Evidence for an interdependency between programming and feedback processing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 51(2), 425–443.
39.
KlassenJ.WagnerM. (2017). Prosodic prominence shifts are anaphoric. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 302–326.
40.
KlugeA. (2017). A Grammar of Papuan Malay. Berlin, Germany: Language Science Press.
41.
KochanskiG.GrabeE.ColemanJ.RosnerB. (2005). Loudness predicts prominence: Fundamental frequency lends little. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118 (2), 1038–1054.
42.
LaddD. R. (2008). Intonational Phonology (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
LaksmanM. (1994) Location of stress in Indonesian words and sentences. In OdéC.van HeuvenV. J. (Eds.), Experimental Studies of Indonesian Prosody - Semaian 9 (pp. 108–139). Leiden, The Netherlands: Vakgroep Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost-Azië en Oceanië, Leiden University.
44.
LamT.Q. (2012). The prominence of referring expressions: Message and lexical level effects (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL.
45.
LamT. Q.MarianV. (2015). Repetition reduction during word and concept overlap in bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 88–107.
46.
LamT. Q.WatsonD. G. (2010). Repetition is easy; Why repeated referents have reduced prominence. Memory and Cognition, 38, 1137–1146.
47.
LamT. Q.WatsonD. G. (2014). Repetition reduction: Lexical repetition in the absence of referent repetition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 829–843.
48.
LitamahuputtyB. H. J. (2012). Ternate Malay: Grammar and texts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). LOT, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
49.
Maskikit-EssedR.GussenhovenC. (2016). No stress, no pitch accent, no prosodic focus: The case of Ambonese Malay. Phonology, 33, 353–389.
50.
MathôtS.SchreijD.TheeuwesJ. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 314–324.
51.
McAllisterJ.PottsA.MasonK.MarchantG. (1994). Word duration in monologue and dialogue speech. Language and Speech, 37, 393–405.
52.
MillerG. A.HeiseG. A.LightenW. (1951). The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 329–335.
53.
OdéC. (1994). On the perception of prominence in Indonesian. In OdéC.van HeuvenV. J. (Eds.), Experimental Studies of Indonesian Prosody - Semaian 9 (pp. 27–107). Leiden, The Netherlands: Vakgroep Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost-Azië en Oceanië, Leiden University.
54.
PaauwS. H. (2008). The Malay Contact Varieties of Eastern Indonesia: A typological comparison (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State University of New York, Buffalo, NY.
55.
PierrehumbertJ.HirschbergJ. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In CohenP.MorganJ.PollackM. (Eds.), Intentions in Communication (pp. 271–312). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56.
PluymaekersM.ErnestusM.BaayenR. H. (2005). Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica, 62, 146–159.
57.
R Core Team (2017). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Computer program, v. 3.4.0. Retrieved from https://www.r-project.org.
58.
RiesbergS.HimmelmannN. P. (2012–2014). Papuan Malay. Summits-Page Collection. DoBeS Archive MPI Nijmegen. Retrieved from http://www.mpi.nl/DOBES/
59.
RiesbergS.KalbertodtJ.BaumannS.HimmelmannN. P. (2018). On the perception of prosodic prominences and boundaries in Papuan Malay. In RiesbergS.ShioharaA.UtsumiA. (Eds.), A Cross-linguistic Perspective on Information Structure in Austronesian Languages (pp. 389–414). Berlin, Germany: Language Science Press.
ShieldsL. W.BalotaD. A. (1991). Repetition and associative context effects in speech production. Language and Speech, 34, 47–55.
62.
SteinhauerH. (1983). Notes on the Malay of Kupang. In CollinsJ.T. (Ed.), Studies in Malay Dialects: Part II (NUSA – Linguistic Studies of Indonesian and other Languages in Indonesia 17, pp. 42–64). Jakarta, Indonesia: Badan Penyelenggara Seri NUSA, Universitas Katolik Atma Jaya.
63.
StoelR. B. (2007). The intonation of Manado Malay. In van HeuvenV. J.van ZantenE. (Eds.), Prosody in Indonesian Languages (pp. 117–150). Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT.
64.
StreefkerkB. M. (2002). Prominence: Acoustic and lexical/syntactic correlates (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). LOT, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
65.
TrónV. (2008). On the durational reduction of repeated mentions: Recency and speaker effects. In CalzolariN.ChoukriK.MaegaardB.MarianiJ.OdijkJ.PiperidisS.TapiasD. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08, pp. 2777–2780), Marrakech, Morocco.
66.
TurkA. (2010). Does prosodic constituency signal relative predictability? A Smooth Signal Redundancy hypothesis. Laboratory Phonology, 1 (2), 227–262.
67.
VajrabhayaP.KapatsinskiV. (2011). There is more to the story: First-mention lengthening in Thai interactive discourse. In LeeW.S.ZeeE. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 2050–2053), Hong Kong.
68.
Van HeuvenV. J.Van ZantenE. (2007). Prosody in Indonesian Languages. Utrecht, The Nertherlands: LOT.
69.
Van MindeD. (1997). Malayu Ambong: Phonology, morphology, syntax (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
70.
Van RossumG.De BoerJ. (1991). Interactively testing remote servers using the python programming language. CWI Quarterly, 4, 283–303.
71.
Van StadenM. (2000). Tidore: A linguistic description of a language of the North Moluccas (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
72.
Van ZantenE.StoelR.RemijsenB. (2010). Stress types in Austronesian languages. In van der HulstH.GoedemansR.van ZantenE. (Eds.), A Survey of Word Accentual Patterns in The Languages of The World (pp. 87–112). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
73.
WatsonD. G. (2010). The many roads to prominence: Understanding emphasis in conversation. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 52, 163–183.
74.
WienerS.SpeerS.R.ShankC. (2012). Effects of frequency, repetition and prosodic location on ambiguous Mandarin word production. In MaQ.DingH.HirstD. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Speech Prosody (pp. 528–531), Shanghai.
75.
XuY. (2011). Post-focus compression: Cross-linguistic distribution and historical origin. In LeeW.S.ZeeE. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 152–155), Hong Kong.
76.
AndersonA. H.BaderM.BoyleE.BardE. G.DohertyG.GarrodS.… WeinertR. (1991). The HCRC Map Task Corpus. Language and Speech, 34, 351–366.
77.
GodfreyJ. JHollimanE. C.McDanielJ. (1992). SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In Proceedings of the 1992 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing - Volume 1 (pp. 517–520). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
78.
OostdijkN. (2000). The Spoken Dutch Corpus project. ELRA Newsletter, 5, 4–8.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
