Is Metrical Foot a Phonetic Object?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10015-010-0001-xKeywords:
metrical foot, isochrony, duration, pitch, intensity, acoustic energyAbstract
The assumption behind this pilot study is that metrical feet are not ‘groups of syllables’ or ‘interstress intervals’ but rather ‘groups of vowels’ extracted from the phonetic material contained between two stresses. We analysed the duration, pitch, intensity and acoustic energy of all vowels in isolated pronunciations of 72 initially stressed items (mono-, di- and trisyllables). The results reveal that pre-fortis clipping of the stressed vowel and final lengthening are interrelated, which suggests that stressed and unstressed final vowels are able to ‘negotiate’ their durations. Such ‘communication’ between the stressed vowels and the final unstressed ones is possible only if a mediating constituent (the foot) is postulated. Most importantly, we found no significant differences (p < .05) between the total acoustic energy and the total vowel duration in words having a different number of syllables, which supports the assumption of foot-level isochrony in English. It was also observed that the significant increase in vowel duration in stressed CVC monosyllables co-occurs with a significantly greater pitch slope, which we interpret to be a tonally driven implementation of minimal foot binarity requirement.
References
Abercrombie, D. 1967. Elements of General Phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Google Scholar
Boersma, P. and D. Weenink. 2005. Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 5.0.32). http://www.praat.org/ 13 August 2008.
Google Scholar
de Lacy, P. 2007. Quality of data in metrical stress theory. Cambridge Extra Magazine. Issue 2.
Google Scholar
Delgutte, B. 1982. Some correlates of phonetic distinctions at the level of the auditory nerve. In Carlson, R and B. Granström (eds.), The representation of speech in the peripheral auditory system: 131-150. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Google Scholar
Giegerich, H. 1992. English Phonology: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Gordon, M. 2000. The tonal basis of final weight criteria. Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 36 (Main Session): 141-156.
Google Scholar
Gordon, M. 2005. A perceptually-driven account of onset-sensitive stress. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 595-653.
Google Scholar
Gussmann, E. 2002. Phonology: Analysis and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Harris, J. 1994. English Sound Structure. Oxford: Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Harris, J. and E. Gussmann. 1998. Final Codas: why the west was wrong. In Eugeniusz Cyran (ed.), Structure and Interpretation. Studies in Phonology: 139-162. Lublin: Folium.
Google Scholar
Hayes, B. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Kim, H. and J. Cole 2005. The stress foot as a unit of planned timing: evidence from shortening in the prosodic phrase. Proceedings of Interspeech 2005, Lisbon, Portugal: 2365-2368.
Google Scholar
Klatt, D. H. 1976. Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: Acoustic and perceptual evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 59: 1208-1221.
Google Scholar
Laver, J. 1995. Principles of Phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Liberman, M. and A. Prince. 1977. On Stress and Linguistic Rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8.2: 249-336.
Google Scholar
Peterson, G. E. and I. Lehiste. 1960. Duration of Syllable Nuclei in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 32: 693-703.
Google Scholar
Ramus, F., M. Nespor and J. Mehler. 1999. Correlates of linguistic rhythm in the speech signal. Cognition 72: 1-28.
Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. 1980. The role of prosodic categories in English word-stress. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 563-605.
Google Scholar
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.