Figure 3.8:Subject 6
3.2.4.2.The Lengthening of the Nucleic Foot
ln English, accOrding tO the theory of stress‐
timed rhythm,
each foot is stretched" or squeezed" according to the number of syllables which are in the foot(Fowler,1977). This effect is known as ι力θ θθ″ρrθSS」iθ″ θFFaθι, and is cited as evidence for isochrony between feet in English. BOlinger(1965)explains this effect using a sentence which is cOmposed entirely of stressed monosyllable wordso Since every syllable in this kind of sentence is stressed,
the length of every syllable is the same. If an unstressed
monosyllablic word is then added to this sentence, it causes thelength of the preceding syllable to decrease.
explanation is as f0110ws:
ご
「
びご
Bolinger's
To appreciate the length Of accentable monosyllables, take an utterance like Pa」堕′ごθカ カ″ ″θノノwLθ FJirθご ′力θsθ g″″s.As we fit single unaccentable monosyllables into this frame,we see how,instead of adding length to the whole, they subtract enough frOIIl the preceding long syllable to make r00m. In Pa″′ごθ あ 力″ ιθ力:whο FJiraご
′力θsθ g口″島Pa is shOrtened to make room for θ′″.Ifあ力″
is replaced by ι力θ 」□a″′ ′力θ steals from 2′ ごθ. If」口θ is
added to ιθゴム ′θノノgives up some ofits length.If ι力οsθ is
replaced by ′力θ, InOst Of the length of′力θsθ is lost, and
′力θ takes from ttrθご.The accentual rather than syntactic
nature of this give and take is manifest in the subtractiOn that ι力θ, fOr example, makes from the
preceding F」irθご, rather than frorn its own ilnmediate constituent,gυ″s."
(Bolinger,1965:168… 169)
In our study,the degree of lengthening will now be analyzed by comparing the duration of the words Jayθθ and MexJθ′″′
which
are feet with different numbers of syllableso Although it was already confirnled that the duration of every foot was lengthened when the sentence nucleus was placed on the foot, it turned out that the degree of elongatiOn of each f00t varied considerably.Table 3.7(Joyce)
With Nucleus Without Nucleus Amount of Lengthening
Subject l 17.18% 11.82% 45。35%
Subject 2 19。35% 12.76% 51.65%
Subject 3 17.90% 13.23% 35。30%
Subject 4 18.03% 13.23% 36.18%
Subject 5 17.85% 11.58% 54。15%
Subject 6 14。33% 10。72% 33.68%
Table 3.8(MIexican)
With Nucleus Without Nucleus Amount of Lengthening
Subject l 28.62% 22.91% 24.92%
Subject 2 25.09% 20.02% 25。32%
Subject 3 26.07% 22.11% 17.91%
Subject 4 26.80% 21.23% 26。24%
Subject 5 26.38% 25。24% 4.52%
Subject 6 26。97% 24。 19% 11.49%
丁he lengthening of the foot 60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
IE]Joyce
l■ Mexican
SutteCt Suttect Suttect SutteCt Suttect SutteCt
123456
Figure 3.9:The lengthening of the foot
Table 3.7 and Table 3.8 above show the elongation when the sentence nucleus was placed on the words JaJ/θ θ and Mex」iθ′″
respectively. For instance, for Subject l, the length of the word
均 θθ aCCOunted for 17.180/O of the length of the whole sentence when the nucleus was placed on this word,but it accounted for only
ll。820/O of the length of the sentence when the nucleus was not placed on it. Therefore, fOr Subject l, the word Jayθ θ elongated
45.35%when the nucleus was placed on this word(See Table 3.7
above). Figure 3.9 above shows the amount of elongation between the words JOycθ and Mexlθ′″when the nucleus was placed on each ofthese words.Table 3.7, Table 3.8, and Figure 3.9 can be sunlmed up as
follows: the word
Лソθθ, which is a monosyllabic foot, was
considerably lengthened when the sentence nucleus was placed on this word, but the wOrd Mex」 θ′″, a polysyllabic foot, was only lengthened slightly when the sentence nucleus was placed on this word.The reason for this difference in elongations can be explained as follows:al■ Onosyllabic foot has rooIIl for expansion because it is inherently shorter than the average foot. On the other hand, a polysyllabic foot is inherently long, and therefore, Mex」 θ′″
lengthened only slightly when the nucleus of the sentence was placed on this word.
These results lead us tO a hypothesis that there exists a normative foot"which is a criterion for every foot in each English speaker's mind. It is speculated that English speakers tend to
adjust every foot tO this normative foot"in order to yield isochrony between feet.
3.2.4.3。 The FoOt Fo1lowing the Nucleic Foot
According to the previOus cOnsiderations,a foot is lengthened
when the sentence nucleus is placed on this foot. From the
acoustic point of view, this effect impedes isochrony between feet because the elongatiOn Of a foOt causes an increased difference of tilne between the foot which cOntains the sentence nucleus and the fo110wing foot.
However,in my experilnent,it was evident that not only the word Joycθ′but alsO the phrase ιθ″ghι ′were lengthened when the
nucleus was placed On the wOrdと
/θθ(See Table 3.9 and Figure 3.10 below)。 Consequently, the duration of the phrase bθ 口ghι ′and the wOrd Jayc・θ were almost the same.This suggests that the subjects psych010gically tried to keep isochrony between consecutive feet.
Table 3.9:The length Ofthe phrase bθ 口ghι a compared to the length of the whOle sentence.
「he nucleus was on 」oyce" rhe nucleus wag not on Joyce"or bought a'
3ubject l 15.92% 14.46%
Subject 2 21.76% 22.11%
Subject 3 20.14% 13.11%
Subject 4 17.10% 11.42%
Subject 5 15.26% 15.24%
Subject 6 14.19% 13.46%
丁he :engthening of the foot
SutteCt SutteCt Suttect 2 3
SutteCt Suttect 4 5
SutteCt
1 1
6Figure 3。10:The lengthening of the foot
Table 3.9 and Figure 3。 10 above show the percentage of the duration of the phrase bθ 口gh′ ′compared to the duration of the whole sentenceo For instance,for Subject l in Table 9,the length of the phrase bθ ″ghι ′accOunted for 15.92%of the length of the whole sentence when the nucleus was placed on the word Joycθ,but it accounted for only 14。
46%when the nucleus was not placed on
Joycθ or bθIIghι ′. HOwever,this tendency is not definite because the result of Subject 2 did not f01low this hypothesis.
FrOm this result, it becomes clear that the first foot in a sentence tends to establish the average length of the foot,and then the duration of each fO1lowing f00t is in■ uenced by the duration of the preceding foot. HOwever,the foot which is in■ uenced by the sentence nucleus is not a nor]mative foot"but an elongated foot, and therefore the inauence of this elongated foot will not last until the end of the last foOto This is important evidence for isochrony
between feet,sO a more detailed investigation will be presented in Chapter 4.
3.2.4.4.The Nucleus and Final Lengthening
ln this experiment, all six subjects uttered the sixth
sentence l■ost rapidly,when the sentence nucleus was on the word
/θS′θrご′.z which was the last f00t in the sentence(See Figures 3.11
to 3。
16 below). This can be explained by the rule of
final lengthening。" Trask (1996)defines
final lengthening" as the universal tendency of speakers tO lengthen the last one or two syllables before a pause." Therefore,according to the rule of final lengthening,"the word yθ sιθrグ′y should have been lengthened even if the sentence nucleus was not placed on this word.丁he duration of the who:e sentence l ― Ь」可5311 1 2700
2600 2500 2400 (ms)2300 1 2200 1 2100 1 2000
￨
1 1900
I Sen8nce sensnce Sen8nCe sen8nce Sen8nce Se15nCe
L ̲̲̲̲ ̲一 ――――――
Figure 3.11:The duratiOn of the whole sentence(Subject l)
丁he duration of the who:e sentence
l 手Su晰こct 2
2800 2780 2760 1 2740 1 2720
kmol1912680
2660 2640 2620 2600 2580
l sentence sentence Sentence Sentence Sentence Sentence l
l
①②
③
④
⑤
⑥ l
―
― ―――――――――――一―――――――― ―――――――――――
―
――一一 ――――――一」
Figure 3.12:The duration of the whole sentence(Subject 2)
丁he duratton of the who:e sentence
― Suttect 3 1
2900 2850 2800