Keywords
Prominence
Articulation
Pragmatics
Phonology
How to Cite
Abstract
This paper examines prominence from a pragmatic, phonological and acoustic-articulatory perspective. Based on results of a corpus-based analysis of Topic prosodic units in four languages (Italian, Brazilian and European Portuguese, and American English), three types of topic prosodic forms (TPFs) are described. Also are reviewed studies reporting phonological organization of English prominence patterns, as well as acoustic and articulatory characteristics of prominence, i.e., broad focus, narrow focus and emphasis, and specifically, how jaw lowering increases with increased prominence. Topic prominence has its scope on the whole prosodic unit, while narrow focus/emphasis prominence has its scope on one word. To examine the acoustic and articulatory characteristics of global prominence in a Topic prosodic unit compared with local prominence when the final topic word is emphasized, a pilot study of TPFs as spoken by an American English speaker was done. The results suggest that global Topic prominence differs from that of marking narrow focus/emphasis; narrow focus/emphasis prominence and Topic prominence are two different types of prominences both from the acoustic-articulatory and from the functional point of view. A new articulatory finding is that only for local prominence, i.e., when the topic word is emphasized, does the jaw show the largest amount of lowering in the phrase; for global prominence, the largest amount of jaw lowering occurs on another word within the phrase, not on the final topic word. Our findings, thus, suggest that there are different types of prominences whose functional values are reflected in the formal cues that implement them.
References
1. Cresti E. Corpus di Italiano Parlato. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca, 2000
2. Moneglia M, Raso T. Appendix: Notes on the Language into Act Theory. In: Raso T, Mello H, editors, Corpora and Linguistic Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2014. p. 468-493. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.61.15mon
3. Fujimura O. The C/D model and prosodic control of articulatory behavior. Phonetica 2000; 57:128-138.
4. Erickson D, Niebuhr O. Articulation of prosody and rhythm: Some possible applications to language teaching, Studies in Laboratory Phonology.Language Science Press (langsci-press.org) 2023:1-45. DOI: 10.2478/9788366675728-001.202
5. Izre’el S, Mello H, Panunzi A, Raso T. In search of a basic unit of spoken language: Segmenting speech. In: Izre’el S, Mello H, Panunzi A, Raso T. editors. In Search of Basic Units of Spoken Language: A corpus-driven approach, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2020, p. 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.94
6. Barth-Weingarten D. Intonation Units Revised: Cesuras in talk-in-interaction. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2016.
7. Beckman M, Hirschberg J, Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In: Jun S-A, editor. Prosodic Typology – The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing Oxford: Oxfiord University Press. 2005. p. 9-54.
8. Cole J, Hualde J, Smith CL, Eager C, Mahrt T, de Souza RN. Sound, structure and meaning: The bases of prominence ratings in English, French and Spanish, Journal of Phonetics 2019; 75:113–147.
9. Lehiste I. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge: MIT Press.1970.
10. Kubozono H. Japanese Pitch Accent in a Typological Perspective. The International Symposium on Tonal Aspects of Languages (TAL-2014) Nijmegen, The Netherlands May 13-16 2014, p. 195-198.
11. Kubozono H. Accent in Japanese Phonology. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. March 29, 2017.
12. Breen M, Fedorenko EG, Wagner M, Gibson E. Acoustic Correlates of Information Structure. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 2010; 25(7):1044-1098. DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2010.504378.
13. Svensson Lundmark M, Erickson D. Segmental and syllabic articulations: a descriptive approach. J. Speech Language and Hearing Res., 2024a. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_JSLHR-23-00092,
14. Svensson Lundmark M, Erickson D. Jaw complex: openness, prominence and dynamics. Fonetik, Stockholm, Sweden.2024b.
15. Beckman ME, Edwards J. Articulatory evidence for differentiating stress categories. In: Keating P, editor, Papers in Laboratory Phonology, vol. III, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 7–33.
16. de Jong K. The supraglottal articulation of prominence in English: linguistic stress as localized hyperarticulation. J. acoust. Soc. Am.1995; 97: 491–504.
17. Erickson D. Effects of contrastive emphasis on jaw opening. Phonetica 1998; 55: 147-169.
18. Erickson D. Articulation of extreme formant patterns for emphasized vowels. Phonetica 2002:134-149.
19. Harrington J, Fletcher J, Beckman ME. Manner and place conflicts in the articulation of Australian
English. In: Broe J, Pierrehumbert JB, editors, Papers in Laboratory Phonology (5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2000. p. 40–51.
20. Menezes, C. Rhythmic pattern of American English: Articulatory and acoustic study. PhD diss. Ohio State University, USA.2003.
21. Stone M. Evidence for a rhythm pattern in speech production: observations of jaw movement. J. of Phonetics 1981; 9:109– 120.
22. Mo Y, Cole J, Hasegawa-Johnson M. Prosodic effects on vowel production: evidence from formant structure. Interspeech 2009:668.
23. Svensson Lundmark M, Erickson D, Niebuhr O, Tiede M, Chen W-R. A new articulatory tool: Comparison of EMA and MARRYS. PaPE 2023: 33-34.
24. Erickson D. (2004) On phrasal organization and jaw opening. Proceedings From Sound to Sense, June 13, MIT, CDRom publication.2004:24
25. Svensson Lundmark M, Erickson D, Niebuhr O, Tiede M, Chen W-R. A new articulatory tool: Comparison of EMA and MARRYS. PaPE 2023: 33-34.
26. Erickson D, Barbosa P, Silveira G. The interplay between acoustics and syllable articulation organized by Mandible movement. International Seminar on Speech Production, Autrans, France.2024.
27. Erickson D. Iskarous K, Whalen D. Production of hyperarticulated vs. contrastively emphasized vowels. In Proceedings of Un siècle to Phonetique experimentale: historie et developpement, de Theodore Rosset a John Ohala. 2005, p. 41.
28. Šimko J, Beňuš S, Vainio, M. Hyperarticulation in Lombard speech: Global coordination of the jaw, lips and the tongue. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139, 2016:151.
29. Mefferd AS. Tongue- and Jaw-Specific Contributions to Acoustic Vowel Contrast Changes in the Diphthong /ai/ in Response to Slow, Loud, and Clear Speech. J Speech Lang Res., 2017; 60(11): 3144-3158.
30. Erickson D, Suemitsu A, Shibuya Y, Tiede M. Metrical structure and production of English rhythm. Phonetica 2012; 69:180–190.
31. Erickson D., Kim J, Kawahara S, Wilson I, Menezes C, Suemitsu A, and Moore,J. Bridging articulation and perception: The C/D model and contrastive emphasis. International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 2015.
32. Moneglia M. Spoken Corpora and Pragmatics. In: Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada (2), 2011: 479-519
33. Cresti E. The Definition of Focus in Language into Act Theory (L-AcT). In: Mello H, Panunzi A, Raso T. Pragmatics and Prosody. Firenze: Firenze University Press, 2011, p. 39-82.
34. Raso T, Rocha B. Illocution and attitude: on the complex interaction between prosody and pragmatic parameters. Journal of Speech Science, 2016; 5: 5-27.
35. Krifka M, Musan R. Information structure: overview and linguistic issues. In: Krifka M, Musan R. editors, The Expression of Information Structure. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2012, p. 1-49.
36. Signorini S. Topic e soggetto in corpora di italiano parlato spontaneo. Phd. Dissertation, Università di Firenze, 2005.
37. Cresti E, Moneglia M. editors. C-ORAL-ROM. Integrated reference corpora for spoken Romance languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005.
38. Raso T, Mello H. editors. C-ORAL-BRASIL I: corpus de referência de português brasileiro falado informal. Belo Horizonte: UFMG, 2012 : 473-497.
39. Du Bois, JW, Chafe, WL, Meyer Ch, Thompson SA, Englebretson R, Martey N. Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Parts 1-4. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, 2000-2005.
40. Firenzuoli V, Signorini S. L’unità informativa di topic: correlati intonativi. In: Marotta G editor, La coarticolazione. Atti delle XIII giornate di studio del Gruppo di Fonetica Sperimentale. Pisa: ETS, 2003. p. 177-184.
41. Raso T, Cavalcante F, Mittmann M. Prosodic forms of the Topic information unit in a cross-linguistic perspective: a first survey. In:. de Meo, A, F. M. Dovetto, FM, editors, La comunicazione parlata/Spoken Communication. Rome: Aracne, 2017, p. 473-498
42. Cavalcante FA. The topic unit in spontaneous American English: a corpus-based study. M.A. Thesis. Belo Horizonte: UFMG, 2016.
43. Rocha B. Características prosódicas do tópico em PE e o uso do pronome lembrete. Belo Horizonte: UFMG, MA Thesis. 2012.
44. Mittmann, M. O C-ORAL-BRASIL e o estudo da fala informal: um novo olhar sobre o Tópico no Português Brasileiro. Belo Horizonte: UFMG, Ph Dissertation.
45. Cavalcante, FA. The information unit of Topic: a crosslinguistic, statistical study based on spontaneous speech corpora. PhD Dissertation. Belo Horizonte: UFMG, 2020.
46. Cavalcante, F, Raso, T, Barbosa, P. The Topic information unit: modeling prosodic forms in a crosslinguistic perspective. In: Castagneto M, Ravetto M, editors. La comunicazione parlata/ Spoken Communication. Roma: Aracne 2023. p. 427-460.
47. Menezes C, Erickson D. Intrinsic variations in jaw deviation in English vowels. Proc. of International Congress of Acoustics. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, 2013; 19: 060253.
48. Coulange S., Kato T., Rossato R., Masperi M. Enhancing Language Learners’ Comprehensibility through Automated Analysis of Pause Positions and Syllable Prominence. Languages, 9 (3) 2024: 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9030078.
49. Prieto P, Ortega-Llebaria M. Do complex pitch gestures induce syllable lengthening in Catalan and Spanish, In: Vigario M, Frota S, João M, editors, Phonetics and Phonology: Interactions and interrelations, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, Chapter 3. 2009. 10.1075/cilt.306.03pri.
50. Kochanski G, Grabe E, Coleman J, Rosner B. Loudness predicts prominence: fundamental frequency lends little, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2005: 118:1038.
51. Watson DG. 2010. Chapter 4 - The Many Roads to Prominence: Understanding Emphasis in Conversation. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 2010; 52:163-183.
52. Jun, SA. Prosodic typology: By prominence type, word prosody, and macrorhythm. In: Jun S-A, editor, Prosodic typology II. The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2014. p. 520-539.
53. Erickson, D., Rilliard, A., Svensson Lundmark, M., Rebollo Couto, L., Silva, A., de Moraes, J., Niebuhr, O. Collecting Mandible Movement in Brazilian Portuguese. Proceedings of Interspeech. 2024.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Tommaso Raso, Donna Erickson, Malin Svensson Lundmark, Johan Frid, Sylvain Coulange