1932

Abstract

Current empirical work on prosodic prominence is based on theoretical developments in the mid-twentieth century, in which a generalized notion of stress (in word pairs like English and in sentence pairs like ) was replaced by a distinction between an abstract notion of word stress and a concrete notion of phrasal accent or prominence that applies to specific words in an utterance. Much research since then has focused on phonetic and other cues that signal such prominence. Early findings emphasized the role of intonational pitch movements; more recent research demonstrates the importance of other phonetic cues, categorical differences between pitch movement types, and nonphonetic factors like word frequency. However, the definition of prominence itself remains informal and depends on intuitions that are well motivated primarily in European languages. Recent findings point to important differences between languages. These might be accommodated in a more comprehensive theory of word and sentence stress that treats both as manifestations of a hierarchical prosodic structure of the sort assumed in metrical phonology, while at the same time allowing for significant differences of prosodic typology.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-101954
2023-01-17
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/9/1/annurev-linguistics-031120-101954.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-101954&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abercrombie D. 1967. Elements of General Phonetics Edinburgh, Scotl: Edinburgh Univ. Press
  2. Abercrombie D. 1991. Fifty Years in Phonetics Edinburgh, Scotl: Edinburgh Univ. Press
  3. Árnason K, Arnhold A, Ní Chasaide A, Dehé N, Dorn A, Miyaoka O. 2020. The North Atlantic and the Arctic. See Gussenhoven & Chen 2020 303–15
  4. Arnhold A. 2014. Prosodic structure and focus realization in West Greenlandic. See Jun 2014 216–51
  5. Arvaniti A. 2009. Rhythm, timing and the timing of rhythm. Phonetica 66:46–63
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Arvaniti A 2022. Measuring speech rhythm. The Cambridge Handbook of Phonetics R-A Knight, J Setter 312–35 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Arvaniti A, Ladd DR, Mennen I. 2006. Phonetic effects of focus and “tonal crowding” in intonation: evidence from Greek polar questions. Speech Commun 48:667–96
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bard EG, Anderson AH, Sotillo C, Aylett M, Doherty-Sneddon G, Newlands A. 2000. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. J. Mem. Lang. 42:1–22
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Baumann S, Winter B. 2018. What makes a word prominent? Predicting untrained German listeners’ perceptual judgments. J. Phon. 70:20–38
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Beaver D, Clark B, Flemming E, Jaeger TF, Wolters M. 2007. When semantics meets phonetics: acoustical studies of second occurrence focus. Language 83:245–76
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Beckman ME. 1986. Stress and Non-Stress Accent Dordrecht, Neth: Foris
  12. Beckman ME, Edwards J. 1994. Articulatory evidence for differentiating stress categories. Phonological Structure and Phonetic Form: Papers in Laboratory Phonology III PA Keating 7–33 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bishop J, Kuo G, Kim B. 2020. Phonology, phonetics, and signal-extrinsic factors in the perception of prosodic prominence: evidence from Rapid Prosody Transcription. J. Phon. 82:100977
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bocci G, Bianchi V, Cruschina S. 2021. Focus in wh-questions. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 39:405–55
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bolinger DL. 1958. A theory of pitch accent in English. Word 14:109–49
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bolinger DL. 1961. Contrastive accent and contrastive stress. Language 37:83–96
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bolinger DL. 1964. Intonation: around the edge of language. Harvard Educ. Rev. 34:282–96
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bolinger DL. 1972. Accent is predictable (if you're a mind-reader). Language 48:633–44
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Breen M, Fedorenko E, Wagner M, Gibson E. 2010. Acoustic correlates of information structure. Lang. Cogn. Process. 25:1044–98
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Calhoun S, Wollum E, Kruse Va'ai E 2021. Prosodic prominence and focus: Expectation affects interpretation in Samoan and English. Lang. Speech 64:346–80
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Chen A. 2011. Tuning information packaging: intonational realization of topic and focus in child Dutch. J. Child Lang. 38:1055–83
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Chen A, Gussenhoven C, Rietveld T. 2004. Language-specificity in the perception of paralinguistic intonational meaning. Lang. Speech 47:311–49
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Chomsky N, Halle M. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English New York: Harper & Row
  24. Chomsky N, Halle M, Lukoff F 1956. On accent and juncture in English. For Roman Jakobson M Halle 65–80 The Hague, Neth: Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Cohen A, 't Hart J. 1967. On the anatomy of intonation. Lingua 19:177–92
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Cole J, Mo Y, Hasegawa-Johnson M. 2010. Signal-based and expectation-based factors in the perception of prosodic prominence. Lab. Phonol. 1:425–52
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Cole J, Shattuck-Hufnagel S. 2016. New methods for prosodic transcription: capturing variability as a source of information. Lab. Phonol. 7:18
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Coleman HO. 1914. Intonation and emphasis. Misc. Phon. 1:6–26
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Daneš F 1974. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective F Daneš 106–28 The Hague, Neth: Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Dascălu L. 1975. What are you asking about? (On the intonation of emphasis in “yes-no” questions). Rev. Roum. Linguist. 20:477–80
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Dauer R. 1983. Stress-timing and syllable-timing reanalyzed. J. Phon. 11:51–62
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Fry DB. 1955. Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 27:265–68
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Fry DB. 1958. Experiments in the perception of stress. Lang. Speech 1:126–52
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Fudge E. 1984. English Word Stress London: Allen & Unwin
  35. Gahl S. 2008. Time and thyme are not homophones: the effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84:474–96
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Georgakopoulos T, Skopeteas S. 2010. Projective versus interpretational properties of nuclear accents and the phonology of contrastive focus in Greek. Linguist. Rev. 27:319–46
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Giegerich HJ. 2009. The English compound stress myth. Word Struct. 2:1–17
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Goedemans R, van Zanten E 2007. Stress and accent in Indonesian. Prosody in Indonesian Languages E van Zanten, VJ van Heuven 35–62 Leiden, Neth: Leiden Univ. Cent. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Gordon M 2011. Stress: phonotactic and phonetic evidence. The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. 2 M van Oostendorp, CJ Ewen, E Hume, K Rice 924–48 Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Grice M, Ladd DR, Arvaniti A. 2000. On the place of phrase accents in intonational phonology. Phonology 17:143–85
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Grice M, Ridouane R, Roettger TB 2015. Tonal association in Tashlhiyt Berber: evidence from polar questions and contrastive statements. Phonology 32:241–66
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Gussenhoven C. 1983. Focus, mode and the nucleus. J. Linguist. 19:377–417
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Gussenhoven C 2011. Sentential prominence in English. The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. 5 M van Oostendorp, CJ Ewen, E Hume, K Rice 2778–806 Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Gussenhoven C, Chen A 2020. The Oxford Handbook of Language Prosody Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  45. Halliday MAK. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English (part II). J. Linguist. 3:199–244
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Hayes B. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  47. Hermes D, van Gestel J. 1991. The frequency scale of speech intonation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 90:97–102
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Holden KT, Hogan JT. 1993. The emotive impact of foreign intonation: an experiment in switching English and Russian intonation. Lang. Speech 36:67–88
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Jackendoff R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  50. Jeon HS 2015. Prosody. Handbook of Korean Linguistics L Brown, J Yeon 41–58 New York: Wiley-Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Jones D. 1922. An Outline of English Phonetics Leipzig, Ger: Teubner
  52. Jun SA. 1996. The Phonetics and Phonology of Korean Prosody (1993 PhD Thesis, Ohio State Univ.) New York: Garland
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Jun SA. 2005a. Korean intonational phonology and prosodic transcription. Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing SA Jun 201–29 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Jun SA. 2005b. Prosodic typology. Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing SA Jun 430–58 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Jun SA 2014. Prosodic Typology II: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  56. Jyothi P, Cole J, Hasegawa-Johnson M, Puri V. 2014. An investigation of prosody in Hindi narrative speech. Proc. Speech Prosody 7:623–27
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Karlsson AM. 2014. The intonational phonology of Mongolian. See Jun 2014 187–215
  58. Katz J, Selkirk EO 2011. Contrastive focus versus discourse-new: evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language 87:771–816
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Kawahara S 2015. The phonology of Japanese accent. The Handbook of Japanese Phonetics and Phonology H Kubozono 445–92 Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Keane E. 2014. The intonational phonology of Tamil. See Jun 2014 118–53
  61. Kember H, Choi J, Yu J, Cutler A 2021. The processing of linguistic prominence. Lang. Speech 64:413–36
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Kochanski G, Grabe E, Coleman J, Rosner B 2005. Loudness predicts prominence: Fundamental frequency lends little. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118:1038–54
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Krahmer E, Swerts M. 2001. On the alleged existence of contrastive accents. Speech Commun. 34:391–405
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Kratzer A, Selkirk EO. 2020. Deconstructing information structure. Glossa 5:1113
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Kubozono H. 2022. Word and Sentence Prosody: The Endangered Dialect of Koshikijima Japanese Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
  66. Ladd DR. 1980. The Structure of Intonational Meaning: Evidence from English Bloomington: Ind. Univ. Press
  67. Ladd DR 1984. English compound stress. Intonation, Accent, and Rhythm D Gibbon, H Richter 253–66 Berlin: De Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Ladd DR. 1990. Intonation: emotion versus grammar. Language 66:806–16
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Ladd DR. 2008. Intonational Phonology Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. , 2nd ed..
  70. Lake JJ. 1975. Grammar explanation in terms of sentence stress. Slav. East Eur. J. 19:166–73
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Laver J. 1994. Principles of Phonetics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  72. Lee YC. 2015. Prosodic focus within and across languages PhD Thesis, Univ. Pa. Philadelphia:
  73. Lehiste I. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  74. Levi JN. 1978. The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals New York: Academic
  75. Liberman MY. 1975. The intonational system of English PhD Thesis, MIT Cambridge, MA:
  76. Liberman MY, Prince A. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguist. Inq. 8:249–336
    [Google Scholar]
  77. London J. 2012. Hearing in Time: Psychological Aspects of Musical Meter Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  78. Luchkina T, Cole JS. 2021. Perception of word-level prominence in free word order language discourse. . Lang. Speech 64:381–412
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Maskikit-Essed R, Gussenhoven C 2016. No stress, no pitch accent, no prosodic focus: the case of Ambonese Malay. Phonology 33:353–89
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Meinhof C. 1933. Musikalischer Ton und Stärkeakzent. Indoger. Forschung. 51:181–95
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Newman SS. 1946. On the stress system of English. Word 2:171–87
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Odé C 1994. On the perception of prominence in Indonesian. Experimental Studies of Indonesian Prosody C Odé, VJ van Heuven 27–107 Leiden, Neth: Dep. Lang. Cult. Southeast Asia Ocean., Univ. Leiden
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Olman C 2022. Introduction to Sensation and Perception Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Lib. Publ.
  84. Pierrehumbert JB. 1979. The perception of fundamental frequency declination. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 66:363–69
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Pierrehumbert JB. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation PhD Thesis, MIT Cambridge, MA:
  86. Riesberg S, Kalbertodt J, Baumann S, Himmelmann NP. 2020. Using Rapid Prosody Transcription to probe little-known prosodic systems: the case of Papuan Malay. Lab. Phonol. 11:18
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Rietveld ACM, Gussenhoven C. 1985. On the relation between pitch excursion size and prominence. J. Phon. 13:299–308
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Rischel J. 1974. Topics in West Greenlandic Phonology: Regularities Underlying the Phonetic Appearance of Word Forms in a Polysynthetic Language Copenhagen, Den: Akad. Forl.
  89. Ritter S, Grice M. 2015. The role of tonal onglides in German nuclear pitch accents. Lang. Speech 58:114–28
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Roach P. 1982. On the distinction between ‘stress-timed’ and ‘syllable-timed’ languages. Linguistic Controversies: Essays in Linguistic Theory and Practice in Honour of F.R. Palmer D Crystal 73–79 London: Edward Arnold
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Roettger T, Gordon M. 2017. Methodological issues in the study of word stress correlates. Ling. Vanguard 3:120170006
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Rooth ME. 1985. Association with focus PhD Thesis, Univ. Mass. Amherst, Amherst:
  93. Roux G, Bertrand R, Ghio A, Astésano C. 2016. Naïve listeners’ perception of prominence and boundary in French spontaneous speech. Proc. Speech Prosody 8:912–16
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Rump HH, Collier R. 1996. Focus conditions and the prominence of pitch-accented syllables. Lang. Speech 39:1–17
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Selkirk EO. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation Between Sound and Structure Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  96. Sievers E. 1876. Grundzüge der Lautphysiologie. Leipzig, Ger: Breitkopf & Härtel
  97. Sluijter AMC, van Heuven VJ. 1996. Spectral balance as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 100:2471–85
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Sluijter AMC, van Heuven VJ, Pacilly JJA. 1997. Spectral balance as a cue in the perception of linguistic stress. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101:503–13
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Smith CL. 2011. Perception of prominence and boundaries by naïve French listeners. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences1874–77 London: Int. Phon. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Steedman M. 2000. Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguist. Inq. 31:649–689.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Steele J. 1775. An Essay Towards Establishing the Melody and Measure of Speech to Be Expressed and Perpetuated by Peculiar Symbols London: J. Almon
  102. Stetson RH. 1928. Motor Phonetics Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
  103. Streefkerk B, Pols L, ten Bosch L. 1999. Acoustical features as predictors for prominence in read aloud Dutch sentences used in ANN's. Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (Eurospeech 1999)551–54 Baixas, Fr: Int. Speech Commun. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Sweet H. 1877. A Handbook of Phonetics Oxford, UK: Clarendon
  105. Swerts M, Krahmer E, Avesani C. 2002. Prosodic marking of information status in Dutch and Italian: a comparative analysis. J. Phon. 30:629–54
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 't Hart J 1981. Differential sensitivity to pitch distance, particularly in speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 69:811–21
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 't Hart J, Cohen A, Collier R 1990. A Perceptual Study of Intonation: An Experimental-Phonetic Approach Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  108. 't Hart J, Collier R 1975. Integrating different levels of intonation analysis. J. Phon. 3:235–55
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Tabain M, Fletcher J, Butcher A. 2014. Lexical stress in Pitjantjatjara. J. Phon. 42:52–66
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Terken JMB. 1991. Fundamental frequency and perceived prominence of syllables. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 89:1768–76
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Terken JMB, Hermes D 2000. The perception of prosodic prominence. Prosody: Theory and Experiment M Horne 89–127 Dordrecht, Neth: Kluwer
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Trager GL, Smith HL. 1957. An Outline of English Structure Washington, DC: Am. Council Learn. Soc.
  113. Turco G, Braun B, Dimroth C. 2014. When contrasting polarity, the Dutch use particles, Germans intonation. J. Pragmat. 62:94–106
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Turnbull R. 2017. The role of predictability in intonational variability. Lang. Speech 60:123–53
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Turnbull R, Royer AJ, Ito K, Speer SR. 2017. Prominence perception is dependent on phonology, semantics, and awareness of discourse. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 32:1017–33
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Twaddell WF. 1953. Stetson's model and the ‘supra-segmental phonemes. .’ Language 29:415–53
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Vallduví E. 1990. The role of plasticity in the association of focus and prominence. Proceedings of the Seventh Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 1990)295–306 Columbus: Ohio State Univ.
    [Google Scholar]
  118. van Heuven VJ 2018. Acoustic correlates and perceptual cues of word and sentence stress. The Study of Word Stress and Accent: Theories, Methods and Data R Goedemans, J Heinz, H van der Hulst 15–59 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  119. van Heuven VJ, Roosman L, van Zanten E. 2008. Betawi Malay word prosody. Lingua 118:1271–87
    [Google Scholar]
  120. van Heuven VJ, Turk A. 2020. Phonetic correlates of word and sentence stress. See Gussenhoven & Chen 2020 150–65
  121. van Rijswijk R, Muntendam A. 2014. The prosody of focus in the Spanish of Quechua-Spanish bilinguals: a case study on noun phrases. Int. J. Biling 18:614–32
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Vander Klok JM, Goad H, Wagner M. 2018. Prosodic focus in English versus French: a scope account. Glossa 3:171
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Vanderslice R, Ladefoged P. 1972. Binary suprasegmental features and transformational word-accentuation rules. Language 48:819–38
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Venditti JJ, Jun SA, Beckman ME 1996. Prosodic cues to syntactic and other linguistic structures in Japanese, Korean, and English. Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition JL Morgan, K Demuth 287–311 Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Vogel I, Athanasopoulou A, Pincus N 2016. Prominence, contrast and the functional load hypothesis: an acoustic investigation. Dimensions of Phonological Stress J Heinz, R Goedemans, H van der Hulst 123–67 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Wagner M 2020. Prosodic focus. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics D Gutzmann, L Matthewson, C Meier, H Rullmann, TE Zimmermann Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem133
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  127. Walker J. 1791. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary London: Robinson
  128. Weinreich U. 1954. Stress and word structure in Yiddish. The Field of Yiddish: Studies in Yiddish Language, Folklore and Literature U Weinreich 1–27 New York: Linguist. Circ. N.Y.
    [Google Scholar]
  129. White L, Malisz S. 2020. Speech rhythm and timing. See Gussenhoven & Chen 2020 166–79
  130. Yanushevskaya I, Gobl C, Ní Chasaide A 2018. Cross-language differences in how voice quality and f0 contours map to affect. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 144:2730
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Zahner K, Kutscheid S, Braun B. 2019. Alignment of f0 peak in different pitch accent types affects perception of metrical stress. J. Phon. 74:75–95
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-101954
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-101954
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplemental Material

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error