Vowel duration in stressed and unstressed syllables in spontaneous English

Many phonetic “truths” are based on descriptions of controlled speech material, and verifying their validity in spontaneous productions is essential. The present study investigates vowel duration as an acoustic correlate of stress in spontaneous English, in communicatively motivated contexts. By analyzing British and American political debates, this study aims to verify previously reported tendencies – specifically, that stressed vowels are significantly longer than unstressed ones. Our analysis of 16 speakers, based on linear mixed effects models, confirms the significant effect of stress on vowel duration and also considers additional factors influencing segmental duration like vowel length, phrase-final position, vowel height, or the nature of the following segment. In addition to stress, multiple regression analysis identifies vowel length, phrase-final position and vowel height as the most influential vowel duration predictors. Despite the variability of spontaneous speech, vowel duration proves to be a reliable correlate of stress, supporting the findings from controlled-speech research.

1. Adams, C., & Munro, R. R. (1978). In search of the acoustic correlates of stress: Fundamental frequency, amplitude, and duration in the connected utterance of some native and non-native speakers of English. Phonetica, 35, 125-126. CrossRef

2. Barry, W., & Andreeva, B. (2001). Cross-language similarities and differences in spontaneous speech patterns. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 31(1), 51-66. CrossRef

3. Bates, D., Mächler, M., & Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48. CrossRef

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

5. Bettagere, R. (2010). Differences in acoustic characteristics of stress patterns in American English. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 110(2), 339-347. CrossRef

6. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2024). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.4). Retrieved from www.praat.org

7. Byrd, D., & Saltzman, E. (2003). The elastic phrase: modelling the dynamics of boundary-adjacent lengthening. Journal of Phonetics, 31, 149-180. CrossRef

8. Cauldwell, R. (2013). Phonology for listening: Teaching the stream of speech. Speech in Action.

9. Chen, M. (1970). Vowel length variation as a function of the voicing of the consonant environment. Phonetica, 22, 129-159. CrossRef

10. Crystal, T. H., & House, A. S. (1988). Segmental durations in connected-speech signals: Syllabic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 83, 1574-1585. CrossRef

11. Eriksson, A., & Heldner, M. (2015). The acoustics of word stress in English as a function of stress level and speaking style. Proceedings of Interspeech 2015, 41-45. CrossRef

12. Fry, D. B. (1955). Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27(4), 765-768. CrossRef

13. Fuchs, R. (2016). The acoustic correlates of stress and accent in English content and function words. Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2016, 435-439. CrossRef

14. Greenberg, S. (1999). Speaking in shorthand - A syllable-centric perspective for understanding pronunciation variation. Speech Communication, 29, 159-176. CrossRef

15. House, A. S. (1961). On vowel duration in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 33(9), 1174-1178. CrossRef

16. Johnson, K. (2004). Massive reduction in conversational American English. In K. Yoneyama & K. Maekawa (eds.), Proceedings of the first session of the 10th international symposium on spontaneous speech: Data and analysis (pp. 29-54). The National International Institute for Japanese Language.

17. Klatt, D. H. (1976). Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: acoustic and perceptual evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 59, 1208-1221. CrossRef

18. Kluender, R. K., Diehl, R. L., & Wright, B. A. (1988). Vowel length differences before voiced and voiceless consonants: An auditory explanation. Journal of Phonetics, 16, 153-169. CrossRef

19. Kohler, K. J. (1984). Phonetic explanation in phonology: the feature fortis/lenis. Phonetica, 41, 150-174. CrossRef

20. Lehiste, I. (1972). The timing of utterances and linguistic boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51(6B), 2018-2024. CrossRef

21. Lenth, R. (2024). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.10.3. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans

22. Lieberman, P. (1960). Some acoustic correlates of word stress in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 32, 451-454. CrossRef

23. Luce, P. A., & Charles-Luce, J. (1985). Contextual effects on vowel duration, closure duration, and the consonant/vowel ratio in speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 78(6), 1949-1957. CrossRef

24. Machač, P., & Skarnitzl, R. (2009). Principles of phonetic segmentation. Epocha.

25. Nakamura, M., Iwano, K., & Furui, S. (2008). Differences between acoustic characteristics of spontaneous and read speech and their effects on speech recognition performance. Computer Speech and Language, 22, 171-184. CrossRef

26. Peterson, G. E., & Lehiste, I. (1960). Duration of syllable nuclei in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 32, 693-703. CrossRef

27. R Core Team (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (version 4.4.2). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.r-project.org

28. Solé, M. J., & Ohala, J. J. (2010). What is and what is not under the control of the speaker: Intrinsic vowel duration. In C. Fougeron, B. Kühnert, M. D'Imperio & N. Vallée (eds.), Laboratory phonology 10 (pp. 607-655). De Gruyter Mouton. CrossRef

29. Tucker, B. V., & Mukai, Y. (2023). Spontaneous speech. Cambridge University Press. CrossRef

30. van Heuven, V. J. (2019). Acoustic correlates and perceptual cues of word and sentence stress: towards a cross-linguistic perspective. In R. Goedemans, J. Heinz, & H. van der Hulst (eds.), The study of word stress and accent: theories, methods and data (pp. 15-59). Cambridge University Press. CrossRef

31. van Santen, J. P. H. (1992). Contextual effects on vowel duration. Speech Communication, 11, 513-546. CrossRef

32. Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag. CrossRef

33. 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(3), 1707-1717. CrossRef

34. Yuan, J., & Liberman, M. (2008). Speaker identification on the SCOTUS corpus. Proceedings of Acoustics '08, 5687-5690. CrossRef