Advertisement

Phrase-Final Segment Lengthening in Russian: Preliminary Results of a Corpus-Based Study

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8113)

Abstract

The paper presents preliminary results of a corpus-based study of phrase-final segment lengthening in Russian. The Corpus of Russian Professionally Read Speech (CORPRES) was used to investigate the degree of lengthening for segments immediately preceding phrase boundaries as a function of segment class and boundary type. According to our data, there is a general tendency for shorter segments to show more lengthening than longer segments (in pairs like /f/–/s/, /t/–/t j / etc.). However, this seems to work the opposite way in pairs of fricatives vs. stops. We have also found that boundary depth (sentence-final vs. non-sentence-final) and the presence or absence of a pause have an effect on phrase-final segment lengthening.

Keywords

final lengthening pre-boundary lengthening segment duration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Byrd, D.: Articulatory Vowel Lengthening and Coordination at Phrasal Junctures. Phonetica 57, 3–16 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cambier-Langeveld, T.: Temporal marking of accents and boundaries. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cooper, W.E., Danly, M.: Segmental and temporal aspects of utterance-final lengthening. Phonetica 38 (1981)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fery, C., Hoernig, R., Pahaut, S.: Correlates of phrasing in French and German from an experiment with semi-spontaneous speech. In: Gabriel, C., Lleo, C. (eds.) Intonational Phrasing at the Interfaces: Cross-Linguistic and Bilingual Studies in Romance and Germanic, pp. 11–41 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hofhuis, E., Gussenhoven, C., Rietveld, A.: Final lengthening at prosodic boundaries in Dutch. ICPhS 13, Stockholm: KTH and Dept Linguistics, University of Stockholm, pp. 154–157 (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horne, M., Strangert, E., Heldner, M.: Prosodic boundary strength in Swedish: final lengthening and silent interval duration. In: Proc. XIIIth ICPhS (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krivnova, O.F.: Pre-pausal lengthening of vowels in connected speech. In: ARSO-16, pp. 153–154 (1991) (in Russian)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Skrelin, P., Volskaya, N., Kocharov, D., Evgrafova, K., Glotova, O., Evdokimova, V.: A fully annotated corpus of Russian speech. In: Proc. of the 7th Conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation, pp. 109–112 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tananaiko, S., Vasilieva, L.: Consonant features in spontaneous and read-aloud Russian. In: de Silva, V., Ullakonoja, R. (eds.) Phonetics of Russian and Finnish, pp. 115–132 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vaissière, J.: Language-Independent Prosodic Features. In: Cutler, A., Ladd, R. (eds.) Prosody: Models and Measurements, vol. 14, pp. 53–66 (1983)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Volskaya, N., Stepanova, S.: On the temporal component of intonational phrasing. In: Proc. of SPECOM (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Volskaya, N., Stepanova, S.: Pre-pausal lengthening in Russian. In: Experimental Phonetical Analysis of Speech: Issues and Methods, St. Petersburg, vol. 5, pp. 48–55 (2004) (in Russian)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhoneticsSaint Petersburg State UniversityRussia

Personalised recommendations