Loudness predicts prominence: Fundamental frequency lends little

TLDR

All dialects and speaking styles studied share a common definition of prominence. We explored a database covering seven dialects of British and Irish English and three different styles of speech to find acoustic correlates of prominence. The authors built and evaluated classifiers trained on human prominence judgments, using 452‑ms syllable‑centered windows and various acoustic measures to determine how prominence is expressed. Fundamental frequency played only a minor role, while prominence was mainly marked by loudness and duration, with other measures also minor, and these findings were robust across labeling practices and dialects.

Abstract

We explored a database covering seven dialects of British and Irish English and three different styles of speech to find acoustic correlates of prominence. We built classifiers, trained the classifiers on human prominence/nonprominence judgments, and then evaluated how well they behaved. The classifiers operate on 452 ms windows centered on syllables, using different acoustic measures. By comparing the performance of classifiers based on different measures, we can learn how prominence is expressed in speech. Contrary to textbooks and common assumption, fundamental frequency (f0) played a minor role in distinguishing prominent syllables from the rest of the utterance. Instead, speakers primarily marked prominence with patterns of loudness and duration. Two other acoustic measures that we examined also played a minor role, comparable to f0. All dialects and speaking styles studied here share a common definition of prominence. The result is robust to differences in labeling practice and the dialect of the labeler.