Cover not available

Article published In: English Text Construction
Vol. 17:2 (2024) ► pp.262–288

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

The interplay between prosodic prominence and boundary strength in the production of English checked steady-state vowels

ORCiD logo with link | Ghent University
ORCiD logo with link | KU Leuven | University of Zurich
Published online: 16 October 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.25005.ver
Abstract
This paper studies the effect of prosodic prominence on the production of English checked steady-state vowels. Previous studies found that prosodic factors, such as proximity to a strong prosodic boundary, influence vowel production, but the effect of prosodic prominence has not been studied in sufficient detail. This paper addresses this gap, examining if vowel duration correlates with prosodic prominence, more specifically with a three-way distinction between primary, secondary and non-prominence. This effect is compared to that of proximity to a strong prosodic boundary and to the prosodic boundary strength. This allows us to investigate not only the potential role of prosodic prominence in vowel production but also how it holds up to the previously observed effects of proximity and prosodic boundary strength. The findings provide new insights into the production of English vowels, while also adducing evidence for the relevance of a three-way phonological distinction between primary, secondary and non-prominence.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Prosodic prominence and prosodic boundaries in the LLC and ToBI
    • 2.1Prosodic annotation in the LLC model
    • 2.2Prosodic annotation in the ToBI model
  • 3.Research questions and hypotheses
  • 4.Materials and methods
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Checked steady-state vowels
    • 5.2Boundary strength and proximity
    • 5.3Prosodic prominence
    • 5.4Boundary strength, proximity and prosodic prominence
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (74)
References
Arvaniti, Amalia & Mary Baltazani. 2000. “GREEK ToBI: A System for the Annotation of Greek Speech Corpora”. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2000), vol. II1.555–562. Athens: European Language Resources Association.
Ayers, Gayle M. 1996. Nuclear accent types and prominence: Some psycholinguistic experiments. Ohio: The Ohio State University PhD thesis.
Barnes, Jonathan, Nanette Veilleux, Alejna Brugos & Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2010. Turning points, tonal targets, and the English L- phrase accent. Language and Cognitive Processes 251. 982–1023. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 671. 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baumann, Stefan & Petra B. Schumacher. 2020. The incremental processing of focus, givenness and prosodic prominence. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 51. Open Library of Humanities.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baumann, Stefan. 2006. The intonation of givenness: Evidence from German. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Gayle Ayers Elam. 1993. Guidelines for ToBI Labelling. The Ohio State University Research Foundation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & K. Bretonnel Cohen. 2000. Modeling the articulatory dynamics of two levels of stress contrast. In Merle Horne (ed.) Prosody: theory and experiment, 169–200. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Sun-Ah Jun. 1996. K-ToBI (Korean ToBI) labelling convention. Distributed 1996, Ohio State University & UCLA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E., Julia Bell Hirschberg & Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2005. Chapter 2: the original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In Sun-Ah Jun (ed.), Prosodic models and transcription: towards prosodic typology, 9–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bishop, Jason Brandon. 2013. Prenuclear accentuation in English: phonetics, phonology, and information structure. Los Angeles: UCLA PhD thesis.
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2016. Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Version 6.0.23. [URL]
Breen, Mara, Evelina Fedorenko, Michael Wagner & Edward Gibson. 2010. Acoustic correlates of information structure. Language and Cognitive Processes 251. 1044–1098. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Louis Goldstein. 1988. Some notes on syllable structure in Articulatory Phonology. Phonology 451. 140–155.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Competing constraints on intergestural coordination and self-organization of phonological structures. Bulletin de la Communication Parlée 51. 25–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burdin, Rachel S., Rory Turnbull & Cynthia G. Clopper. 2014. Variability in vowel production: Exploring interactions among frequency, neighborhood density, predictability, and mention. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 135(4). 2291–2291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Byrd, Dani & Elliot Saltzman. 2003. The elastic phrase: modeling the dynamics of boundary-adjacent lengthening. Journal of Phonetics 311. 149–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Byrd, Dani & Susie Choi. 2010. At the juncture of prosody, phonology, and phonetics: the interaction of phrasal and syllable structure in shaping the timing of consonant gestures. In Cécile Fougeron, Barbara Kuehnert & Mariapaola Imperio (eds.) Laboratory Phonology, 31–59. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Byrd, Dani. 1996. Influences on articulatory timing in consonant sequences. Journal of Phonetics 241. 209–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Articulatory vowel lengthening and coordination at phrasal junctures. Phonetica 571. 3–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cambier-Langeveld, Tina & Alice Turk. 1999. A cross-linguistic study of accentual lengthening: Dutch vs. English. Journal of Phonetics 271. 255–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cho, Taehong & James M. McQueen. 2005. Prosodic influences on consonant production in Dutch: effects of prosodic boundaries, phrasal accent and lexical stress. Journal of Phonetics 331. 121–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cho, Taehong & Patricia Keating. 2009. Effects of initial position versus prominence in English. Journal of Phonetics 371. 466–485. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cho, Taehong. 2002. The effects of prosody on articulation in English. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Prosodic strengthening and featural enhancement: evidence from acoustic and articulatory realizations of /ɑ,i/ in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1171. 3867–3878. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Prosodic boundary strengthening in the phonetics–prosody interface. Language and Linguistics Compass 101. 120–141. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cole, Jennifer, Jeremy Steffman, Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel & Sam Tilsen. 2023. Hierarchical distinctions in the production and perception of nuclear tunes in American English. Laboratory Phonology 141. 1–51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1969. Prosodic systems and intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erickson, Donna. 2002. Articulation of extreme formant patterns for emphasized vowels. Phonetica 591. 134–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fougeron, Cécile & Patricia A. Keating. 1997. Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. JASA 1011. 3728–3740. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, John & Sanford Weisberg. 2018. Visualizing fit and lack of fit in complex regression models with predictor effect plots and partial residuals. Journal of Statistical Software 871. 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. An R companion to applied regression, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gafos, Adamantios & Louis Goldstein. 2012. Articulatory representation and phonological organization. In Abigail C. Cohn, Cécile Fougeron & Marie K. Huffman (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Laboratory Phonology, 220–231. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Georgeton, Laurianne & Cécile Fougeron. 2014. Domain-initial strengthening on French vowels and phonological contrasts: evidence from lip articulation and spectral variation. Journal of Phonetics 441. 83–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos & A. C. M. Rietveld. 1992. Intonation contours, prosodic structure and preboundary lengthening. Journal of Phonetics 201. 283–303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2005. Transcription of Dutch intonation. In Sun-Ah Jun (ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 118–145. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967a. Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1967b. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: part 2. Journal of Linguistics 31. 199–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1970. A course in spoken English: intonation. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan, Janet Fletcher & Corinne Roberts. 1995. Coarticulation and the accented/unaccented distinction: evidence from jaw movement data. Journal of Phonetics 231. 305–322. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hart, Johan ’t, René Collier & Antonie Cohen. 1990. A perceptual study of intonation: an experimental-phonetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacewicz, Ewa, Joseph Salmons & Robert Allan Fox. 2009. Prosodic conditioning, vowel dynamics and sound change. In Frank Kügler, Caroline Féry & Ruben van de Vijver (eds.) Variation and gradience in phonetics and phonology, 99–214. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jong, Kenneth de. 2004. Stress, lexical focus, and segmental focus in English: patterns of variation in vowel duration. Journal of Phonetics 321. 493–516. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 2022. The ToBI transcription system: conventions, strengths, and challenges. In Jonathan Barnes & Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel (eds.) Prosodic theory and practice, 151–181. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klatt, Dennis H. 1976. Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: acoustic and perceptual evidence. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 591. 1208–1221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005. Vowel duration as a function of the syllabic structure of a word. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 541. 312–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krivokapić, Jelena. 2014. Gestural coordination at prosodic boundaries and its role for prosodic structure and speech planning processes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 3691. 1–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff & Rune H. B. Christensen. 2017. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software 821. 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladd, Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lecumberri, María Luisa García. 1997. Traditional British analyses of intonation: a review. Atlantis 191. 103–111.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Eun-Kyung, Jennifer Cole & Heejin Kim. 2006. Additive effects of phrase boundary on English accented vowels. Proceedings of the 3rd Speech Prosody Conference. Dresden, Germany. Paper 202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mayo, Catherine, Matthew Aylett & D. Robert Ladd. 1997. Prosodic transcription of Glasgow English: an evaluation study of GlaToBI. Centre for Speech Technology Research, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mo, Yoonsook, Jennifer Cole & Mark Hasegawa-Johnson. 2009. Prosodic effects on vowel production: evidence from formant structure. Paper presented at Interspeech, 10th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Brighton.
Nolan, Francis. 2022. The rise and fall of the British school of intonation analysis. In Jonathan Barnes & Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel (eds.) Prosodic Theory and Practice, 319–349. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Connor, J. D. & Gordon F. Arnold. 1968. Intonation of colloquial English: a practical handbook. London: Longmans.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Grady, Gerard. 2013. Key concepts in phonetics and phonology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Massachusetts: MIT PhD thesis.
Plag, Ingo, Gero Kunter & Mareile Schramm. 2011. Acoustic correlates of primary and secondary stress in North American English. Journal of Phonetics 39(3). 362–374. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russell, Lenth V. 2023. emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.8.6. [URL]
Schepman, Astrid, Robin Lickley & D. Robert Ladd. 2006. Effects of vowel length and “right context” on the alignment of Dutch nuclear accents. Journal of Phonetics 341. 1–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silverman, Kim E. A. & Janet B. Pierrehumbert. 2005. The timing of prenuclear high accents in English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 821. S19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silverman, Kim, Mary E. Beckman, John Pitrelli, Mari Ostendorf, Colin Wightman, Patti Price, Janet Pierrehumbert & Julia Hirschberg. 1992. TOBI: a standard for labeling English prosody. 2nd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP 92). Banff, Alberta. 867–870. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steele, Shirley A. 1986. Nuclear accent F0 peak location: effects of rate, vowel, and number of following syllables. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 801. S51. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tabain, Marija. 2003. Effects of prosodic boundary on /aC/ sequences: articulatory results. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1131. 2834–2849. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tanner, James. 2023. Prosodic and durational influences on the formant dynamics of Japanese vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America Express Letters 31. 085202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tench, Paul. 1988. The roles of intonation in English discourse. Peter Lang. New York.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. The intonation systems of English. London: Cassell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turk, Alice E. & Laurence White. 1999. Structural influences on accentual lengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics 271. 171–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Venditti, Jennifer. 1995. Japanese ToBI labeling guidelines. Ohio State University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verbeke, Gil & Wout Van Praet 2025. Replication Data for: The interplay between prosodic prominence and boundary strength in the production of English checked steady-state vowels, DataverseNO, V1. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wickham, Hadley. 2016. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wightman, Colin W., Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel, Mari Ostendorf & Patti J. Price. 1992. Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 911. 1707–1717. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wickham, H., Mara Averick, Jennifer Bryan, Winston Chang, Lucy D'Agostino McGowan, Romain François, Garrett Grolemund, Alex Hayes, Lionel Henry, Jim Hester, Max Kuhn, Thomas Lin Pedersen, Evan Miller, Stephan Milton Bache, Kirill Müller, Jeroen Ooms, David Robinson, Dana Paige Seidel, Vitalie Spinu, Kohske Takahashi, Davis Vaughan, Claus Wilke, Kara Woo & Hiroaki Yutani. 2019. “Welcome to the tidyverse”. Journal of Open Source Software 4(43). 1686. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue