Restricted access

Research article

First published online March 10, 2013

Request permissions

Prominence in Triconstituent Compounds: Pitch Contours and Linguistic Theory

Kristina Kösling, Gero Kunter, […], Harald Baayen, and Ingo Plag+1View all authors and affiliations

Volume 56, Issue 4

https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830913478914

Abstract
References

Abstract

According to the widely accepted Lexical Category Prominence Rule (LCPR), prominence assignment to triconstituent compounds depends on the branching direction. Left-branching compounds, that is, compounds with a left-hand complex constituent, are held to have highest prominence on the left-most constituent, whereas right-branching compounds have highest prominence on the second of the three constituents. The LCPR is, however, only poorly empirically supported. The present paper tests a new hypothesis concerning the prominence of triconstituent compounds and suggests a new methodology for the empirical investigation of compound prominence. According to this hypothesis, the prominence pattern of the embedded compound has a decisive influence on the prominence of the whole compound. Using a mixed-effects generalized additive model for the analysis of the pitch movements, it is shown that all triconstituent compounds have an accent on the first constituent irrespective of branching, and that the placement of a second, or even a third, accent is dependent on the prominence pattern of the embedded compound. The LCPR is wrong.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

Akaike H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716–723.

Arndt-Lappe S. (2011). Towards an exemplar-based model of stress in English noun-noun compounds. Journal of Linguistics, 47, 549–585.

Arvaniti A., Ladd D. R., Mennen I. (1998). Stability of tonal alignment. The case of Greek prenuclear accents. Journal of Phonetics, 26, 3–25.

Aylett M., Turk A. (2004). The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47, 31–56.

Bauer L. (1998). When is a sequence of two nouns a compound in English? English Language and Linguistics, 2, 65–86.

Beckman M. E., Edwards J. (1994). Articulatory evidence for differentiating stress categories. In Keating P. A. (Ed.), Phonological structure and phonetic form: papers in laboratory phonology III (pp. 7–33). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Beckman M. E., Pierrehumbert J. B. (1986). Intonational structure in English and Japanese. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 255–309.

Bell A., Jurafsky D., Fosler-Lussier E., Girand C., Gregory M., Gildea D. (2003). Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 1001–1024.

Bell M. (2008). Noun noun constructions and the assignment of stress. Paper presented at the 1st Conference of the International Society for the Linguistics of English, Freiburg, 8–11 October.

Bell M., Plag I. (2012). Informativeness is a determinant of compound stress in English. Journal of Linguistics, 48, 485–520.

Berg T. (2009). Structure in language. A dynamic perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.

Blomgren M., Chen Y., Ng M. L., Gilbert H. R. (1998). Acoustic, aerodynamic, physiologic, and perceptual properties of modal and vocal fry registers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103, 2649–2658.

Bloomfield L. (1933). Language. New York, NY: Holt.

Boersma P. (1993). Accurate short-term analysis of the fundamental frequency and the harmonics-to-noise ratio of a sampled sound. Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences, 17, 97–110.

Boersma P., Weenink D. (2012). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.3.22. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/

Carvajal C. S., Horwood J. (1996). The Oxford Spanish-English dictionary: New international edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Dilley L. C., Ladd D. R., Schepman A. (2005). Alignment of L and H in bitonal pitch accents: Testing two hypotheses. Journal of Phonetics, 33, 115–119.

Farnetani E., Torsello C. T., Cosi P. (1988). English compound versus non-compound noun phrases in discourse: An acoustic and perceptual study. Language and Speech, 31, 157–180.

Fudge E. (1984). English word-stress. London, UK: George Allen & Unwin.

Gahl S., Garnsey S. (2004). Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language, 80, 748–774.

Giegerich H. J. (2009). The English compound stress myth. Word Structure, 2, 1–17.

Gussenhoven C. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gussenhoven C., Repp B. H., Rietveld A. C. M., Rump H. H., Terken J. (1997). The perceptual prominence of fundamental frequency peaks. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102, 3009–3022.

Gussenhoven C., Rietveld A. C. M. (1988). Fundamental frequency declination in Dutch: Testing three hypotheses. Journal of Phonetics, 16, 355–369.

Hermes D. J. (2006). Stylization of pitch contours. In Sudhoff S., Lenertová D., Meyer R., Pappert S., Augurzky P., Mleinek I., Schließer J. (Eds.), Methods in empirical prosody research (pp. 29–61). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.

Hirschberg J. (2002). Communication and prosody: Functional aspects of prosody. Speech Communication, 36, 31–43.

Hirschberg J. (2004). Pragmatics and intonation. In Horn L. R. (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 515–537). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hornby A. S. (Ed.) (1983). Oxford student’s dictionary of American English. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hornby A. S. (2000). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary, CD-Rom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Kingston J., Diehl R. L. (1994). Phonetic knowledge. Language, 70, 419–454.

Kochanski G., Grabe E., Coleman J., Rosner B. (2005). Loudness predicts prominence: fundamental frequency lends little. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 1038–1054.

Kösling K. (2013). Prominence assignment in English triconstituent compounds. Siegen, Germany: Universitätsbibliothek Siegen. URN: urn:nbn:de:hbz:467-6748. Retrieved from http://dokumentix.ub.uni-siegen.de/opus/volltexte/2013/674/

Kösling K., Plag I. (2009). Does branching direction determine prominence assignment? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5, 201–239.

Kunter G. (2011). Compound stress in English. The phonetics and phonology of prosodic prominence. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.

Kunter G., Plag I. (2007). What is compound stress? In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken (pp. 1005–1008).

Kvam A. M. (1990). Three-part noun combinations in English, composition – meaning – stress. English Studies, 71, 152–160.

Ladd D. R. (1984). English compound stress. In Gibbon D., Richter H. (Eds.), Intonation, accent and rhythm (pp. 253–266). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.

Ladd D. R. (1996). Intonational phonology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ladd D. R., Verhoeven J., Jacobs K. (1994). Influence of adjacent pitch accents on each other’s perceived prominence: Two contradictory effects. Journal of Phonetics, 22, 87–99.

Ladefoged P. (2003). Phonetic data analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

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

Liberman M., Sproat R. (1992). The stress and structure of modified noun phrases in English. In Sag I. A., Szabolcsi A. (Eds.), Lexical matters (pp. 131–181). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

Longman. (2002). Longman dictionary of American English. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Morrill T. (2012). Acoustic correlates of stress in English adjective-noun compounds. Language and Speech, 55, 167–201.

Olsen S. (2000). Compounding and stress in English: A closer look at the boundary between morphology and syntax. Linguistische Berichte, 181, 55–69.

Olsen S. (2001). Copulative compounds: A closer look at the interface between syntax and morphology. In Booij G., van Marle J. (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2000 (pp. 279–320). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Ostendorf M., Price P., Shattuck-Hufnagel S. (1996). Boston University radio speech corpus. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.

Pierrehumbert J. B. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Plag I. (2003). Word-formation in English linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Plag I. (2006). The variability of compound stress in English: Structural, semantic, and analogical factors. English Language and Linguistics, 10, 143–172.

Plag I. (2010). Compound stress assignment by analogy: The constituent family bias. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 29, 243–282.

Plag I., Kunter G., Lappe S. (2007). Testing hypotheses about compound stress assignment in English: A corpus-based investigation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3, 199–233.

Plag I., Kunter G., Lappe S., Braun M. (2008). The role of semantics, argument structure, and lexicalization in compound stress assignment in English. Language, 84, 760–794.

R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Rietveld A. C. M., Gussenhoven C. (1985). On the relation between pitch excursion size and prominence. Journal of Phonetics, 13, 299–308.

Schmerling S. F. (1971). A stress mess. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 1, 52–66.

Spencer A. (2003). Does English have productive compounding? In Booij G., DeCesaris J., Ralli A., Scalise S. (Eds.), Topics in morphology. Selected papers from the 3rd Mediterranean morphology meeting (pp. 329–341). Barcelona, Spain: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Applicada.

Sproat R. (1994). English noun-phrase accent prediction for text-to-speech. Computer Speech and Language, 8, 79–94.

Štekauer P., Zimmermann J., Gregová R. (2007). Stress in compounds: An experimental research. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 54, 193–215.

Strik H., Boves L. (1995). Downtrend in F0 and P_sb. Journal of Phonetics, 23, 203–220.

Summers D. (Ed.) (2000). Longman advanced American dictionary. Harlow, UK: Longman.

Terken J. (1997). Variation of accent prominence within the phrase: Models and spontaneous speech data. In Sagisaka Y., Campbell N., Higuchi N. (Eds.), Computing prosody. Approaches to a computational analysis and modelling of the prosody of spontaneous speech (pp. 95–116). New York, NY: Springer.

Terken J., Hermes D. J. (2000). The perception of prosodic prominence. In Horne M. (Ed.), Prosody: Theory and experiment. Studies presented to Gösta Bruce (pp. 89–127). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Teschner R. V., Whitley M. S. (2004). Pronouncing English. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Turk A. E., Nakai S., Sugahara M. (2006). Acoustic segment durations in prosodic research: A practical guide. In Sudhoff S., Lenertová D., Meyer R., Pappert S., Augurzky P., Mleinek I., Schließer …J. (Eds.), Methods in empirical prosody research (pp. 1–28). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.

Visch E. (1999). The rhythmic organization of compounds and phrases. In Van der Hulst H., Plank F. (Eds.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe (pp. 161–221). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.

Warren B. (1978). Semantic patterns of noun-noun compounds. Gothenburg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Ghotobugenis.

Wood S. N. (2006). Generalized additive models. An introduction with R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

Wood S. N. (2011). Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (B), 73, 3–36.

Wood S. N. (2012). Mixed GAM computation vehicle with GCV/AIC/REML smoothness estimation. Version 1.7–20. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mgcv/index.html

|

You currently have no access to this content. Visit the access options page to authenticate.