Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:06:31.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vowel duration in English adjectives in attributive and predicative constructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2019

JOAN BYBEE  and
RICARDO NAPOLEÃO DE SOUZA
JOAN BYBEE
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
RICARDO NAPOLEÃO DE SOUZA
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using ten English adjectives, this study tests the hypothesis that the vowels in adjectives in predicative constructions are longer than those in attributive constructions in spoken conversation. The analyses considered a number of factors: occurrence before a pause, lexical adjective, vowel identity, probability given surrounding words, and others. Two sets of statistical techniques were used: a Mixed-effects model and the Random Forest Analysis based on Conditional Inference Trees (CIT). Both analyses showed strong effects of predicative vs. attributive constructions and individual lexical adjectives on vowel duration in the predicted direction, as well as effects of many of the phonological variables tested. The results showed that the longer duration in the predicative construction is not due to lengthening before a pause, though it is related to whether the adjective is internal or final in the predicative construction. Nor is the effect attributable solely to the probability of the occurrence of the adjective; rather construction type has to be taken into account. The two statistical techniques complement each other, with the Mixed-effects model showing very general trends over all the data, and the Random Forest / CIT analysis showing factors that affect only subsets of the data.

Keywords

constructionadjectivesvowel durationRandom Forest analysisfinal lengtheningword probability
Type
Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 555 - 581
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We are grateful to Earl K. Brown of Brigham Young University, Volya Kapatsinski of the University of Oregon, and Chris Koops and Caroline Smith of University of New Mexico for reading an earlier draft and making helpful suggestions.

References

references

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2015). lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-8.Google Scholar
Beckman, M. E. & Edwards, J. (1990). Lengthenings and shortenings and the nature of prosodic constituency. In Kingston, J. & Beckman, M. E. (eds.), Between the grammar and physics of speech – papers in Laboratory Phonology (pp. 152–178). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, A., Brenier, J., Gregory, M., Girand, C. & Jurafsky, D. (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 60(1), 92–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breiman, L. & Cutler, A. (2004). Random Forests. Department of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved from <http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/∼breiman/RandomForests/cc_home.htm>..>Google Scholar
Brown, E. K. (2018). The company that word-boundary sounds keep. In Smith, K. A. & Nordquist, D. (eds.), Functionalist and Usage-Based approaches to the study of language (pp. 108–125). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brown, E. L. (2004). Reduction of syllable initial /s/ in the Spanish of New Mexico and Southern Colorado: a Usage-Based approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico.Google Scholar
Brown, E. L. (2018). Cumulative exposure to phonetic reducing environments marks the lexicon. In Smith, K. A. & Nordquist, D. (eds.), Functionalist and Usage-Based approaches to the study of language (pp. 127–153). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, E. L. & Raymond, W. D. (2012). How discourse context shapes the lexicon: explaining the distribution of Spanish f-/h- words. Diachronica 92(2), 139–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2000). The phonology of the lexicon: evidence from lexical diffusion. In Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (eds.), Usage-Based models of language (pp. 65–85). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2002a). Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In Givón, T. & Malle, B. (eds.), The evolution of language from pre-language (pp. 109–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2002b). Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically-conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14, 261–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language 82, 711–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2017). Grammatical and lexical factors in sound change: a Usage-Based approach. Language Variation and Change 29(3), 273–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M. (1970). Vowel length variation as a function of the voicing of the consonant environment. Phonetica 22(3), 129–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cieri, C., Graff, D., Kimball, O., Miller, D. & Walker, K. (2005). Fisher English Training Speech Part 1 Transcripts LDC2004T19. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Cole, J. (2015). Prosody in context: a review. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(1/2), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. Retrived from <http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/>.Google Scholar
De Jong, N. H. & Wempe, T. (2009). Praat script to detect syllable nuclei and measure speech rate automatically. Behavior Research Methods 41(2), 385–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Englebretson, R. (1997). Genre and grammar: predicative and attributive adjectives in spoken English. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure (pp. 411–421).Google Scholar
Erman, B. & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 20(1), 29–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fónagy, I. & Magdics, K. (1960). Speed of utterance in phrases of different lengths. Language and Speech 3(4), 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, C. A. & Housum, J. (1987). Talkers’ signaling of ‘new’ and ‘old’ words in speech and listeners’ perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language 26(5), 489–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gahl, S. (2008). ‘Thyme’ and ‘time’ are not homophones: the effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84(3), 474–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gahl, S. & Garnsey, S. M. (2004). Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language 80(4), 748–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, J. J. & Holliman, E. (1993). Switchboard-1 Release 2 LDC97S62. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2013). Statistics for linguistics with R: a practical introduction (2nd rev. ed.). Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, G. (1991). Contextual conditioning in variable lexical phonology. Language Variation and Change 3, 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillenbrand, J., Getty, L. A., Clark, M. J. & Wheeler, K. (1995). Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97, 3099–3111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hooper, J. B. (1976). Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In Christie, W. (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics (pp. 96–105). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K. & Zeileis, A. (2006). Unbiased recursive partitioning: a conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3), 651–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61(1), 23–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaeger, T. F. & Tily, H. (2011). On language ‘utility’: processing complexity and communicative efficiency. WIRE: Cognitive Science 2(3), 323–335.Google ScholarPubMed
Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M. & Raymond, W. D. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: evidence from reduction in lexical production. In Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229–254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krivokapić, J. (2014). Gestural coordination at prosodic boundaries and its role for prosodic structure and speech planning processes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 369. doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0397CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuperman, V. & Bresnan, J. (2012). The effects of construction probability on word durations during spontaneous incremental sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 588–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of linguistic change: internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Levshina, N. (2015). How to do linguistics with R: data exploration and statistical analysis . Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: a sketch of the H&H Theory. In Hardcastle, W. J. & Marchal, A. (eds.), Speech production and speech modelling (pp. 403–439). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Local, J. & Walker, G. (2012). How phonetic features project more talk. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 42(3), 255–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuki, K., Kuperman, V. & Van Dyke, J. A. (2016). The Random Forests statistical technique: an examination of its value for the study of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading 20(1), 20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrill, T. (2011). Acoustic correlates of stress in English adjective–noun compounds. Language and Speech 55(2), 167–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxford Collocations Dictionary (2002). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, B. S. (2006). Word frequency and lexical diffusion. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2013). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from <https://www.R-project.org/>..>Google Scholar
Rosenfelder, I., Fruehwald, J., Evanini, K., Seyfarth, S., Gorman, K., Prichard, H. & Yuan, J. (2014). FAVE (Forced Alignment and Vowel Extraction) Program Suite v1.2.2.Google Scholar
Sereno, J. A. & Jongman, A. (1995). Acoustic correlates of grammatical class. Language and Speech 38(1), 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seyfarth, S. (2014). Word informativity influences acoustic duration: effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition 133(1), 140–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. & Turk, A. E. (1996). A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25(2), 193–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sóskuthy, M. & Hay, J. (2017). Changing word usage predicts changing word durations in New Zealand English. Cognition 166, 298–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tagliamonte, S. A. & Baayen, H. R. (2012). Models, forests, and trees of York English: was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2), 135–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, E. (2010). Sociophonetics: an introduction . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. (1988). A discourse approach to the cross-linguistic category ‘adjective’. In Hawkins, J. A. (ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 167–185). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tily, H., Gahl, S., Arnon, I., Snider, N., Kothari, A. & Bresnan, J. (2009). Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation in spontaneous speech. Language and Cognition, 1(2), 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wightman, C. W., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., Ostendorf, M. & Price, P. J. (1992). Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 91, 1707–1717.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed