English Compound Versus Non-Compound Noun Phrases in Discourse: An Acoustic and Perceptual Study

Abstract

The aim of the present paper is to describe, in acoustic and perceptual terms, the prosodic pattern distinguishing English compound and non-compound noun phrases, and to determine how information structure and position affect the production and perception of the two forms. The study is based on the performance of ten English-speaking subjects (five speakers and five listeners). The test utterances were three minimal-pair noun phrases of two constituents, excised from conversational readings. These were analyzed acoustically, and submitted to the listeners for semantic identification. The results indicate that the distinction, when effective, lies primarily in the different prominence pattern: a sequence of an accented constituent followed by an unaccented one in compounds, and of two accented constituents (the second heard as stronger than the first) in non-compounds. It is also based on a different degree of internal cohesion, stronger in compounds and weaker in non-compounds. F ₀, associated or trading with intensity, has proved to be the main cue to this distinction — more than duration, the major differentiating parameter in production. When an item is excised from the context, the perception of the intended category depends heavily on the communicative importance it had in the discourse. This means that information structure, through its effects on accentuation, becomes the determining factor in the perception of the distinction. The distinctive accentual pattern weakens or is completely neutralized when the test items convey old information. The degree of deaccentuation also seems to be affected by an immediately following focus, and, to a certain extent, by position. The data are viewed in the framework of speaker-listener interaction, and it is argued that deaccentuation, as well as accentuation, can have a communicative function.

Keywords

compounds accent stress information structure

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

BOLINGER, D.L. , and GERSTMAN, L.J. (1957). Disjuncture as a cue to constructs. Word, 13, 246–256.

CHOMSKY, N. , and HALLE, M. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.

COSI, P. , FRIGO, L. , MIAN, G.A. , and SINIGALLIA, T. (1984). On the use of autocorrelation for pitch extraction: Some statistical considerations and their application to the SIFT algorithm. Speech Communication, 3, 309–334.

FAURE, G. , HIRST, D.J. , and CHAFCOULOFF, M. (1980). Rhythm in English: Isochronism, pitch, and perceived stress. In L.R. Waugh and C.H. van Schooneveld (eds.), The Melody of Language (pp. 71–79). Baltimore: University Park Press.

FUCHS, A. (1984). ‘Deaccenting’ and ‘Default Accent’. In D. Gibbon and H. Richter (eds.), Intonation, Accent and Rhythm (pp. 134–164). Berlin: de Gruyter.

GOLDSMITH, J. (1981). English as a tone language. In D.L. Goyvaerts (ed.), Phonology in the 1980's (pp. 287–308). Ghent: E. Story-Scientia.

HALLIDAY, M.A.K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3, 199–244.

HALLIDAY, M.A.K. (1970). A Course in Spoken English: Intonation. London: Oxford University Press.

HIRST, D.J. (1983). Structures and categories in prosodic representations. In A. Cutler and D.R. Ladd (eds.), Prosody: Models and Measurements (pp. 93–110). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

10.

LADD, D.R. (1984). English compound stress. In D. Gibbon and H. Richter (eds.), Intonation, Accent and Rhythm (pp. 253–266). Berlin: de Gruyter.

11.

LEA, W.A. (1977). Acoustic correlates of stress and juncture. In L.M. Hyman (ed.), Studies in Stress and Accent (pp. 83–119). Los Angeles: Dept. of Linguistics, University of Southern California.

12.

LEHISTE, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

13.

LIBERMAN, M. , and PRINCE, A. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 249–336.

14.

LINDBLOM, B. (1987). Adaptive variability and absolute constancy in speech signals: Two themes in the quest for phonetic invariance. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Vol. 3 (pp. 9–18). Tallinn: Academy of Sciences of the Estonian S.S.R.

15.

MARKEL, J.D. (1972). The SIFT algorithm for fundamental frequency estimation. IEEE Transactions on Audio Electroacoustics, AU 20, 367–377.

16.

NAKATANI, L.H. , O'CONNOR, K. , and ASTON, C.H. (1981). Prosodic aspects of American English speech rhythm. Phonetica, 38, 84–106.

17.

NOOTEBOOM, S.G. , and TERKEN, J.M.B. (1982). What makes speakers omit pitch accents? An experiment. Phonetica, 39, 317–336.

18.

NOOTEBOOM, S.G. , and KRUYT, J.G. (1987). Accents, focus distribution and the perceived distribution of given and new information: An experiment. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 82, 1512–1524.

19.

OLLER, D.K. (1973). The effect of position in utterance on speech segment duration in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 1235–1246.

20.

PIERREHUMBERT, I. (1979). The perception of fundamental frequency declination. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66, 363–370.

21.

SELKIRK, E. (1984). Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.