Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei.

The language redundancy of a syllable, measured by its predictability given its context and inherent frequency, has been shown to have a strong inverse relationship with syllabic duration. This relationship is predicted by the smooth signal redundancy hypothesis, which proposes that robust communication in a noisy environment can be achieved with an inverse relationship between language redundancy and the predictability given acoustic observations (acoustic redundancy). A general version of the hypothesis predicts similar relationships between the spectral characteristics of speech and language redundancy. However, investigating this claim is hampered by difficulties in measuring the spectral characteristics of speech within large conversational corpora, and difficulties in forming models of acoustic redundancy based on these spectral characteristics. This paper addresses these difficulties by testing the smooth signal redundancy hypothesis with a very high-quality corpus collected for speech synthesis, and presents both durational and spectral data from vowel nuclei on a vowel-by-vowel basis. Results confirm the duration/language redundancy results achieved in previous work, and show a significant relationship between language redundancy factors and the first two formants, although these results vary considerably by vowel. In general, however, vowels show increased centralization with increased language redundancy.

[1]  George Kingsley Zipf,et al.  Human behavior and the principle of least effort , 1949 .

[2]  THE ANALYSIS OF STRESS AND JUNCTURE IN ENGLISH , 1960 .

[3]  John R. Pierce,et al.  Symbols, Signals, and Noise: The Nature and Process of Communication. , 1961 .

[4]  D. Bolinger,et al.  LENGTH, VOWEL, JUNCTURE , 1963 .

[5]  P. Lieberman.  Some Effects of Semantic and Grammatical Context on the Production and Perception of Speech , 1963 .

[6]  J. Neter,et al.  Applied linear statistical models : regression, analysis of variance, and experimental designs , 1974 .

[7]  John C. Wells,et al.  Accents of English , 1982 .

[8]  M. Picheny,et al.  Speaking clearly for the hard of hearing. II: Acoustic characteristics of clear and conversational speech. , 1986, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[9]  C. Fowler,et al.  Talkers' signaling of new and old. words in speech and listeners' perception and use of the distinction , 1987 .

[10]  D. Talkin.  Speech formant trajectory estimation using dynamic programming with modulated transition costs , 1987 .

[11]  W. V. Summers.  Effects of stress and final-consonant voicing on vowel production: articulatory and acoustic analyses. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  W. Strange,et al.  Dynamic specification of coarticulated vowels spoken in sentence context. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Björn Lindblom,et al.  Explaining Phonetic Variation: A Sketch of the H&H Theory , 1990 .

[14]  Anne H. Anderson,et al.  The Hcrc Map Task Corpus , 1991 .

[15]  John J. Godfrey,et al.  SWITCHBOARD: telephone speech corpus for research and development , 1992, [Proceedings] ICASSP-92: 1992 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing.

[16]  Terrance M. Nearey.  Applications of generalized linear modeling to vowel data , 1992, ICSLP.

[17]  Dick R. van Bergem,et al.  Acoustic vowel reduction as a function of sentence accent, word stress, and word class , 1993, Speech Commun..

[18]  J. B. Pickering,et al.  Vowel Perception and Production , 1994 .

[19]  Zinny S. Bond,et al.  A note on the acoustic-phonetic characteristics of inadvertently clear speech , 1994, Speech Commun..

[20]  B. Lindblom,et al.  Interaction between duration, context, and speaking style in English stressed vowels , 1994 .

[21]  Steve Young,et al.  The HTK book , 1995 .

[22]  Louis C. W. Pols,et al.  An acoustic profile of consonant reduction , 1996, Proceeding of Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. ICSLP '96.

[23]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Intelligibility of normal speech I: Global and fine-grained acoustic-phonetic talker characteristics , 1996, Speech Commun..

[24]  Ronald Rosenfeld,et al.  Statistical language modeling using the CMU-cambridge toolkit , 1997, EUROSPEECH.

[25]  Louis C. W. Pols,et al.  An acoustic description of consonant reduction , 1999, Speech Commun..

[26]  Daniel Jurafsky,et al.  The role of the lemma in form variation , 2002 .

[27]  Matthew P. Aylett,et al.  Stochastic suprasegmentals: relationships between redundancy, prosodic structure and care of articulation in spontaneous speech , 2000, INTERSPEECH.

[28]  Matthew P. Aylett.  Modelling care of articulation with HMMs is dangerous , 2001, INTERSPEECH.

[29]  Louis C. W. Pols,et al.  How efficient is speech , 2003 .

[30]  Patricia Martine Adank,et al.  Vowel Normalization. A Perceptual acoustic study of Dutch Vowels , 2003 .

[31]  Dan Jurafsky,et al.  Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  B. Munson,et al.  The effect of phonological neighborhood density on vowel articulation. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[33]  R. Wright.  Phonetic Interpretation Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI: Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation , 2004 .

[34]  Alice Turk,et al.  The Smooth Signal Redundancy Hypothesis: A Functional Explanation for Relationships between Redundancy, Prosodic Prominence, and Duration in Spontaneous Speech , 2004, Language and speech.

[35]  Joan L. Bybee.  Lexicalization of Sound Change and Alternating Environments , 2007 .

[36]  William D. Raymond,et al.  Probabilistic Relations between Words: Evidence from Reduction in Lexical Production , 2008 .