Examining Temporal Structure of Speech with a Local Articulation Rate Metric

Jan Volín; Michaela Svatošová

doi:10.18778/1731-7533.21.1.05

Authors

Jan Volín Institute of Phonetics, Charles University, Prague
Michaela Svatošová Institute of Phonetics, Charles University, Prague

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.21.1.05

Keywords:

final deceleration, local articulation rate, information structure, information status, phone duration, temporal contour

Abstract

The primary goal of our study is to propose a method of calculating and visualising local articulation rate for research in temporal structure of speech. The method builds on proportional durations of vowels and consonants in Czech, which normalizes for inherent durations of phones. We first demonstrate the importance of temporal structure on several conspicuous features: phrase-final deceleration, prominence marking, parentheticals, and information structure constituents. We then describe our method stepwise so that it could be tested by interested parties. We illustrate such testing on a sample of news bulletin sentences produced by 26 speakers. The results confirm that our procedure can meaningfully reflect various temporal features, including the ‘information status’ of words in contextually grounded utterances.

References

Aasland, Wendi A. and Shari R. Baum. 2003. Temporal parameters as cues to phrasal boundaries: A comparison of processing by left- and right-hemisphere brain-damaged individuals. Brain and Language, 87(3), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00138-X
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00138-X

Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Bartoň, Tomáš; Cvrček, Václav; Čermák, František; Jelínek, Tomáš and Vladimír Petkevič. 2009. Statistiky češtiny. Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.
Google Scholar

Baumann, Stefan and Riester, Arndt. 2013. Coreference, lexical givenness and prosody in German. Lingua, 136, 16-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.012
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.012

Baumann, Stefan; Becker, Johannes; Grice, Martine and Doris Mücke. 2007. Tonal and articulatory marking of focus in German. In Proceedings of the XVIth ICPhS, 1029-1032.
Google Scholar

Behaghel, Otto. 1909. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen, 25, 110-142. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110242652.110
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110242652.110

Boersma, Paul and David Weenink. 2022. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (6.2.07). https://www.praat.org/
Google Scholar

Bořil, Tomáš and Radek Skarnitzl. 2016. Tools rPraat and mPraat. In P. Sojka, A. Horák, I. Kopeček and K. Pala (eds.), Text, Speech, and Dialogue, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 367-374. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45510-5_42
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45510-5_42

Breen, Mara; Watson, Duane G. and Edward Gibson. 2011. Intonational phrasing is constrained by meaning, not balance. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(10), 1532-1562. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.508878
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.508878

Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Fischer. (currently available in the English version: Theory of Language, 2011, John Benjamins Publishing Company)
Google Scholar

Büring, Daniel. 2019. Focus, questions and givenness. In K. von Heusinger, E. Onea and M. Zimmermann (eds.), Questions in Discourse, 6-44. Brill.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004378322_003

Carlson, Katy; Clifton, Charles and Lyn Frazier. 2001. Prosodic boundaries in adjunct attachment. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(1), 58-81. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2762
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2762

Cooper, William E.; Eady, Stephen J. and Pamela R. Mueller. 1985. Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question–answer contexts. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77(6), 2142-2156. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.392372
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.392372

Ferreira, Fernanda; Anes, Michael D. and Matthew D. Horine. 1996. Exploring the use of prosody during language comprehension using the auditory moving window technique. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(2), 273-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01708574
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01708574

Firbas, Jan. 1992. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597817

Grice, Paul. 1991. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar

Heldner, Mattias and Eva Strangert. 2001. Temporal effects of focus in Swedish. Journal of Phonetics, 29(3), 329-361. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2001.0143
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2001.0143

Hirotani, Masako; Frazier, Lyn and Keith Rayner. 2006. Punctuation and intonation effects on clause and sentence wrap-up: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(3), 425-443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.001
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.001

Holzgrefe-Lang, Julia; Wellmann, Caroline; Petrone, Caterina; Räling, Romy; Truckenbrodt, Hubert; Höhle, Barbara and Isabell Wartenburger. 2016. How pitch change and final lengthening cue boundary perception in German: converging evidence from ERPs and prosodic judgements. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(7), 904-920. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1157195
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1157195

Kohler, Klaus J. 2006. What is emphasis and how is it coded? In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Speech Prosody, 748-751.
Google Scholar

Kügler, Frank. 2008. The role of duration as a phonetic correlate of focus. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Speech Prosody, 591-594.
Google Scholar

Lelandais, Manon and Gaëlle Ferré. 2014. Multimodal analysis of parentheticals in conversational speech. Multimodal Communication, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/mc-2014-0008
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mc-2014-0008

Local, John. 1992. Continuing and restarting. In P. Auer and A. Di Luzio (eds.), Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 273-296. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.18loc
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.18loc

Martin, James G. 1968. Temporal word spacing and the perception of ordinary, anomalous, and scrambled strings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7(1), 154-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(68)80181-1
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(68)80181-1

Peters, Benno; Kohler, Klaus and Thomas Wesener. 2005. Phonetische Merkmale prosodischer Phrasierung in deutscher Spontansprache. Prosodic Structures in German Spontaneous Speech (AIPUK 35a).
Google Scholar

Pollák, Petr; Volín, Jan and Radek Skarnitzl. 2007. HMM-Based Phonetic Segmentation in Praat Environment. In The XII International Conference Speech and Computer – SPECOM 2007, 537-541.
Google Scholar

Price, Patti J.; Ostendorf, Mari; Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie and Cynthia Fong. 1991. The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 90(6), 2956-2970.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.401770

R Core Team. 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Google Scholar

Scott, Donia R. 1982. Duration as a cue to the perception of a phrase boundary. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 71(4), 996-1007. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.387581
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.387581

Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438

Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213

Šturm, Pavel and Aleš Bičan. 2021. Slabika a její hranice v češtině. Karolinum.
Google Scholar

Uhmann, Susanne. 1992. Contextualizing Relevance: On Some Forms and Functions of Speech Rate Changes in Everyday Conversation. In P. Auer and A. Di Luzio (eds.), Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 297-336. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.19uhm
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.19uhm

Volín, Jan. 2019. The meaning in language generally and in question-word questions particularly: A study in speech prosody. In T. Hoskovec (ed.), Expérience et Avenir du Structuralisme. Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague, 123-141. Kanina.
Google Scholar

Wickham, Hadley; Averick, Mara; Bryan, Jennifer; Chang, Winston; McGowan, Lucy D’Agostino; François, Romain; Grolemund, Garrett; Hayes, Alex; Henry, Lionel; Hester, Jim; Kuhn, Max; Pedersen, Thomas Lin; Miller, Evan; Bache, Stephan Milton; Müller, Kirill; Ooms, Jeroen; Robinson, David; Seidel, Dana Paige; Spinu, Vitalie; Takahashi, Kohske; Vaughan, Davis; Wilke, Claus; Woo, Kara and Hiroaki Yutani. 2019. Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686-1691. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686

Yang, Xiaohong; Shen, Xiangrong; Li, Weijun and Yufang Yang. 2014. How listeners weight acoustic cues to intonational phrase boundaries. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e102166. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102166
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102166

Zhang, Xinting. 2012. A Comparison of Cue-weighting in the Perception of Prosodic Phrase Boundaries in English and Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan.
Google Scholar