AUC Philologica (Acta Universitatis Carolinae Philologica) je akademický časopis publikující jak lingvistické, tak literárně historické a teoretické studie. Nedílnou součástí časopisu jsou i recenze odborných knih a zprávy z akademického prostředí.

Časopis je indexován v databázích CEEOL, DOAJ, EBSCO a ERIH PLUS.

AUC PHILOLOGICA, Vol 2019 No 2 (2019), 145–158

The size of prosodic phrases in native and foreign-accented read-out monologues

[The size of prosodic phrases in native and foreign-accented read-out monologues ]

Jan Volín

zveřejněno: 18. 10. 2019


The objective of this study is to provide quantitative data concerning size of prosodic phrases in foreign-accented Czech. The speech production of Anglophone users of the Czech language is contrasted with that of Czech professional and non-professional speakers. Each of the three groups of speakers of Czech is represented by 12 speakers. The fourth group of speakers (also 12 subjects) are English professional news readers. They provide data pertaining to the mother tongue of the target group. As expected, the prosodic phrases produced by non-native speakers are shorter and our data provide basis for their modelling that can be used in perceptual testing. One of the interesting outcomes of the study is the revelation that although Czech professional speakers make longer phrases than English professionals if counted in syllables (10.78 against 7.76 syllable per phrase), if counted in words, the difference disappears (4.56 against 4.54 words per phrase). This suggests that semantic constraints on prosodic phrase length are stronger than purely structural ones.

klíčová slova: prosodic phrase; prosodic boundary; foreign accent; clear speech; Czech; English

reference (35)

1. Auer, P. (1996). On the prosody and syntax in turn-continuations. In: E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.) Prosody in Conversation, pp. 57-100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef

2. Beckman, M. E., & Ayers Elam, G. (1997). Guidelines for ToBI Labelling, version 3. The Ohio State University Research Foundation, Ohio State University.

3. Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2019). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program], Version 6.0.47, retrieved 8 February 2019,

4. Breen, M., Watson, D. G. & Gibson, E. (2011). Intonational phrasing is constrained by meaning, not balance. Language and Cognitive Processes 26(10), pp. 1532-1562. CrossRef

5. Buxton, H. (1983). Temporal predictability in the perception of English speech. In: A. Cutler & D. R. Ladd (Eds.) Prosody: Models and measurements (pp. 111-121). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. CrossRef

6. Caplan, D., & Waters, G. (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 77-94. CrossRef

7. Carlson, K., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (2001). Prosodic boundaries in adjunct attachment. Journal of Memory and Language 45(1), 58-81. CrossRef

8. Cooper, W. E. & Paccia-Cooper, J. (1980). Syntax and speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. CrossRef

9. Dellwo, V., Pellegrino, E., He, L. & Kathiresan, T. (2019). The dynamics of indexical information in speech: Can recognizability be controlled by the speaker? Acta Universitatis Carolinae - Philologica XX, Phonetica Pragensia XV, pp. xx-xx.

10. Ferreira. F, Anes, M. D. & Horine, M. D. (1996). Exploring the use of prosody during language comprehension using the auditory moving window technique. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25(2), 273-290. CrossRef

11. Gee, J. P. & Grosjean, F. (1983). Performance structures: A psycholinguistic and linguistic appraisal. Cognitive Psychology 15(4), 411-458. CrossRef

12. Hirotani, M., Frazier, L., Rayner, K. (2006). Punctuation and intonation effects on clause and sentence wrap-up: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 54(3), pp. 425-443. CrossRef

13. Jun, S. A. (2005). Prosodic typology. In: S. A. Jun (Ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, pp. 430-458, Oxford University Press. CrossRef

14. Kentner, G. & Féry, C. (2013). A new approach to prosodic grouping. The Linguistic Review, 30(2), 1-35. CrossRef

15. Lehiste, I. (1973). Phonetic disambiguation of syntactic ambiguity. Glossa, 7, 107-122. CrossRef

16. Leonard, L. B. (1974). The role of intonation in the recall of various linguistic stimuli. Language and Speech, 16(4), 327-335. CrossRef

17. Lev-Ari, S., & Keysar, B. (2010). Why don't we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1093-1096. CrossRef

18. Martin, J. G. (1968). Temporal word spacing and the perception of ordinary, anomalous, and scrambled strings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 7(1), 154-157. CrossRef

19. Martin, J. G. (1979). Rhythmic and segmental perception are not independent. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 65(5), 1286-1297. CrossRef

20. Meltzer, R. H., Martin, J. G., Mills, C. B., Imhoff, D. L. & Zohar, D. (1976). Reaction time to temporally displaced phoneme targets in continuous speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(2), 277-290. CrossRef

21. Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. (1983). Prosodic structure above the word. In: A. Cutler & D. R. CrossRef

22. Ladd (Eds.), Prosody: Models and measurements, pp. 123-140. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

23. O'Connell, D. C, Turner, E. A. & Onuska, L. A. (1968). Intonation, grammatical structure, and contextual association in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 7(1), 110-116. CrossRef

24. Parlikar, A., & Black, A.W. (2011). A grammar based approach to style specific phrase prediction. In: Proceedings of INTERSPEECH 2011, Florence, Italy: ISCA, pp. 2149-2152.

25. Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation [Ph.D. dissertation]. MIT, Cambridge, MA. [Published in 1987 by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington].

26. Pollák, P., Volín, J. & Skarnitzl, R. (2007). HMM-based phonetic segmentation in Praat environment. In: Proceedings of XIIth Speech and Computer - SPECOM 2007, pp. 537-541.

27. Price, P., Ostendorf, M., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. & Fong, C. (1991). The use of prosody in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 90(6), 2956-2970. CrossRef

28. Pynte, J., & Prieur, B. (1996). Prosodic breaks and attachment decisions in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(1-2), 165-192. CrossRef

29. Reeves, C., Schmauder, A. & Morris, R. K. (2000). Stress grouping improves performance on an immediate serial list recall task. Journal of Experimental Psychology - Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), pp. 1638-1654. CrossRef

30. Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

31. Schafer, A. J., Speer, S. R., Warren, P. & White, S. D. (2000). Intonational disambiguation in sentence production and comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29(2), 169-182. CrossRef

32. Taylor, P. & Black, A. W. (1998). Assigning phrase breaks from part-of-speech sequences, Computer Speech and Language 12(2), 99-117. CrossRef

33. Tyler, L. K. & Warren, P. (1987). Local and global structure in spoken language comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 26(6), 638-657. CrossRef

34. Xu, Y. (2011). Speech prosody: A methodological review. Journal of Speech Sciences 1(1), 85-115.

35. Zurif, E. B. & Mendelsohn, M. (1972). Hemispheric specialization for the perception of speech sounds: The influence of intonation and structure. Perception & Psychophysics 11(5), 329-332. CrossRef

Creative Commons License
The size of prosodic phrases in native and foreign-accented read-out monologues is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

230 x 157 mm
vychází: 3 x ročně
cena tištěného čísla: 150 Kč
ISSN: 0567-8269
E-ISSN: 2464-6830

Ke stažení