---
title: "Metrical enhancement in American English nuclear tunes (2024)"
description: "The study asks whether the full set of nuclear tunes predicted by the Autosegmental-Metrical (AM) model of Mainstream… 59 references."
authors: ["Jeremy Steffman", "Jennifer Cole"]
year: 2024
venue: "Glossa: a journal of general linguistics"
source: "https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/15297/"
doi: "10.16995/glossa.15297"
licence: "CC BY 4.0"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/steffman-2024-metrical-enhancement-american-english-nuclear/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/steffman-2024-metrical-enhancement-american-english-nuclear/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2024](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2024/page/14/) / Metrical enhancement in American English nuclear tunes

# Metrical enhancement in American English nuclear tunes

**Authors:** Jeremy Steffman and [Jennifer Cole](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/authors/jennifer-cole/) · **Year:** 2024 · **Venue:** [Glossa: a journal of general linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/) ([Glossa a journal of general linguistics 2024](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/2024/)) · **Publisher:** [Ubiquity Press](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/ubiquity-press/) · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.15297) · [PDF](https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/15297/galley/33835/download) · [DOI 10.16995/glossa.15297](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.15297) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W4400001055)

**Citations:** 0 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14)

## Summary
The study asks whether the full set of nuclear tunes predicted by the Autosegmental-Metrical (AM) model of Mainstream American English corresponds to real phonological categories. The AM model allows 20 tunes, but some of its distinctions, such as H* versus L+H*, are disputed. The authors ran two imitation experiments. Participants listened to a model tune and then imitated it on a different sentence, where the word carrying the tune differed in its number of syllables. Together the experiments covered 12 tunes. F0 trajectories were first grouped with a clustering analysis, and the authors then tested which tune differences grew larger as metrical structure changed, which they treat as "enhancement." Clustering produced only three broad tune shapes. Only the differences between these emergent clusters were enhanced. Smaller differences between tunes inside the same cluster could still be measured, but they stayed constant across metrical conditions. The authors interpret these smaller differences as within-category phonetic variation, possibly meaningful, rather than separate categories. This interpretation could reconcile competing accounts of how many intonational categories English has.

## Key points
- The AM model of MAE has 5 pitch accents (setting aside !H), 2 phrase accents and 2 boundary tones, which combine into 20 nuclear tunes. Two experiments here tested 12 of them.
- In the imitative production paradigm, the syllable count and metrical structure of the nuclear word varied. Stimuli were presented without any discourse context, so the study concerns tune form only.
- Clustering found three emergent tunes: high-rising, rising-falling and low-rising. Within these, finer differences appeared in rise shape (measured with TCoG) and in ending F0.
- Only between-cluster distinctions were enhanced by metrical structure, and this held in both experiments. Within-cluster differences were small and did not vary with metrical structure.
- Speakers came from several US regions, so dialect-specific claims are not possible. The work was funded by NSF BCS-1944773.

## Interesting ideas
- Enhancement as a test of category status: a real contrast should widen when the context gives it more room, while a gradient difference stays the same size. This separates categories from fine variation without relying on expert labels.
- First let the data form bottom-up clusters, then compare those clusters with the inventory that theory predicts. Disagreements show where the theory over-splits categories.
- Treat a measurable difference as possibly real but sub-categorical, rather than forcing a choice between "a separate category" and "noise." The authors keep within-category variation as a potentially meaningful gradient.
- Imitation is a way to probe which distinctions people actually perceive and maintain: participants reproduce a model on new material, and the system checks which contrasts survive the transfer.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (tree): When deciding whether two UD dialect labels or relation subtypes are truly distinct, check whether the cues separating them grow in contexts where the distinction should matter, and merge the labels if the cues stay flat.
- **I2** (learn): Cluster silver-data outputs from the witness parsers and compare the clusters with the label set. Labels that never separate are candidates for merging or for confusion-tolerant evaluation.
- **I3** (frames): Represent graded pragmatic signals such as emphasis or degree of irony as scalar attributes on a frame, not as extra discrete speech-act classes.
- **I4** (back): Test the text → graph → text compressor in the same way, by regenerating meaning onto new wording and measuring which distinctions survive the round trip, since these are the ones the graph really encodes.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

- [University of Edinburgh](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/university-of-edinburgh/) — University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom · 359 works · 77,352 citations
- [Northwestern University](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/universities/northwestern-university/) — University, Evanston, United States · 41 works · 2,194 citations

📚 Shelves (4): [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 16,039 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 15,891 works · [💭 Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/) · 1,552 works · [💭 Experimental and Cognitive Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/experimental-and-cognitive-psychology/) · 870 works

🧭 Topics (1): [English](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/english/) · 2,263 works

## Cite

Cite as: Jeremy Steffman and Jennifer Cole. 2024. Metrical enhancement in American English nuclear tunes. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@article{steffman2024metrical,
  title = {{Metrical enhancement in American English nuclear tunes}},
  author = {Jeremy Steffman and Jennifer Cole},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2024},
  doi = {10.16995/glossa.15297},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.15297}
}
```

- [← previous Method for Expanding Event Commonsense Knowledge Graph Based on Large Language Models](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/huang-2024-method-expanding-event/)
- [next → Mevaker: Conclusion Extraction and Allocation Resources for the Hebrew Language](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/shalumov-2024-mevaker-conclusion-extraction-allocation-resources/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2024](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2024/page/14/)

## References

59 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Arvaniti, Amalia & Garding, Gina. 2007. Dialectal variation in the rising accents of American English. Papers in Laboratory Phonology 9. 547–576. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Arvaniti%2C+Amalia+%26+Garding%2C+Gina%2E+2007%2E+Dialectal+variation+in+the+rising+accents+of+American+English%2E+Papers+in+Laboratory+Phonology+9%2E+547%E2%80%93576%2E)
2. Barnes, Jonathan & Brugos, Alejna & Veilleux, Nanette & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 2021. On (and off) ramps in intonational phonology: Rises, falls, and the Tonal Center of Gravity. Journal of Phonetics 85. 101020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2020.101020 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2020.101020)
3. Barnes, Jonathan & Veilleux, Nanette & Brugos, Alejna & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 2012. Tonal Center of Gravity: A global approach to tonal implementation in a level-based intonational phonology. Laboratory Phonology 3(2). 337–383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2012-0017 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2012-0017)
4. Baumann, Stefan & Mertens, Jane & Kalbertodt, Janina & Phonetik, IfL. 2017. How’ornamental’are German prenuclear accents. Oral presentation at PaM17 4. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Baumann%2C+Stefan+%26+Mertens%2C+Jane+%26+Kalbertodt%2C+Janina+%26+Phonetik%2C+IfL%2E+2017%2E+How%E2%80%99ornamental%E2%80%99are+German+prenuclear+accents%2E+Oral+presentation+at+PaM17+4%2E)
5. Beckman, Jill & Helgason, Pétur & McMurray, Bob & Ringen, Catherine. 2011. Rate effects on Swedish VOT: Evidence for phonological overspecification. Journal of Phonetics 39(1). 39–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.11.001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.11.001)
6. Beckman, Mary E. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology 3. 255–309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S095267570000066X [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s095267570000066x)
7. Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2020. Praat: doing phonetics by computer (version 6.1.09). [http://www.praat.org](http://www.praat.org). [↗](http://www.praat.org)
8. Bolinger, Dwight. 1961. Generality, gradience, and the all-or-none. Mouton. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bolinger%2C+Dwight%2E+1961%2E+Generality%2C+gradience%2C+and+the+all%2Dor%2Dnone%2E+Mouton%2E)
9. Braun, Bettina & Kochanski, Greg & Grabe, Esther & Rosner, Burton S. 2006. Evidence for attractors in English intonation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119(6). 4006– 4015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2195267 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2195267)
10. Burdin, Rachel Steindel & Holliday, Nicole R. & Reed, Paul E. 2022. American English pitch accents in variation: Pushing the boundaries of mainstream American English-ToBI conventions. Journal of Phonetics 94. 101163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2022.101163 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2022.101163)
11. Bürkner, Paul-Christian. 2017. brms: An r package for Bayesian multilevel models using stan. Journal of Statistical Software 80. 1–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01 [↗](https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01)
12. Bürkner, Paul-Christian & Charpentier, Emmanuel. 2020. Modelling monotonic effects of ordinal predictors in Bayesian regression models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 73(3). 420–451. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12195 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12195)
13. Calhoun, Sasha. 2012. The theme/rheme distinction: Accent type or relative prominence? Journal of Phonetics 40(2). 329–349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2011.12.001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2011.12.001)
14. Caliński, Tadeusz & Harabasz, Jerzy. 1974. A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Communications in Statistics-theory and Methods 3(1). 1–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03610927408827101 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/03610927408827101)
15. Cho, Taehong. 2004. Prosodically conditioned strengthening and vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in English. Journal of Phonetics 32(2). 141–176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00043-3 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0095-4470(03)00043-3)
16. Cho, Taehong. 2005. Prosodic strengthening and featural enhancement: Evidence from acoustic and articulatory realizations of/ɑ, i/in English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117(6). 3867–3878. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1861893 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1861893)
17. Cho, Taehong & Kim, Daejin & Kim, Sahyang. 2017. Prosodically-conditioned fine-tuning of coarticulatory vowel nasalization in English. Journal of Phonetics 64. 71–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2016.12.003 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2016.12.003)
18. Chodroff, Eleanor Rosalie & Cole, Jennifer. 2018. Information structure, affect, and prenuclear prominence in American English. In Proceedings of INTERSPEECH. 1848–1852. International Speech Communication Association. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2018-1529 [↗](https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2018-1529)
19. Chodroff, Eleanor Rosalie & Cole, Jennifer. 2019. The phonological and phonetic encoding of information status in American English nuclear accents. In Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. York. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chodroff%2C+Eleanor+Rosalie+%26+Cole%2C+Jennifer%2E+2019%2E+The+phonological+and+phonetic+encoding+of+information+status+in+American+English+nuclear+accents%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+19th+International+Congress+of)
20. Cole, Jennifer & Kim, Heejin & Choi, Hansook & Hasegawa-Johnson, Mark. 2007. Prosodic effects on acoustic cues to stop voicing and place of articulation: Evidence from Radio News speech. Journal of Phonetics 35(2). 180–209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2006.03.004 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2006.03.004)
21. Cole, Jennifer & Steffman, Jeremy. 2021. The primacy of the rising/non-rising dichotomy in American English intonational tunes. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tone and Intonation, 122–126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21437/TAI.2021-25 [↗](https://doi.org/10.21437/tai.2021-25)
22. Cole, Jennifer & Steffman, Jeremy & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie & Tilsen, Sam. 2023. Hierarchical distinctions in the production and perception of nuclear tunes in American English. Laboratory Phonology 14(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.16995/labphon.9437 [↗](https://doi.org/10.16995/labphon.9437)
23. De Jong, Kenneth. 2004. Stress, lexical focus, and segmental focus in English: Patterns of variation in vowel duration. Journal of Phonetics 32(4). 493–516. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. wocn.2004.05.002 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j)
24. Dilley, Laura C. 2005. The phonetics and phonology of tonal systems: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Dilley%2C+Laura+C%2E+2005%2E+The+phonetics+and+phonology+of+tonal+systems%3A+Massachusetts+Institute+of+Technology+dissertation%2E)
25. Dilley, Laura C. & Heffner, Christopher C. 2013. The role of f0 alignment in distinguishing intonation categories: evidence from American English. Journal of Speech Sciences 3(1). 3–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20396/joss.v3i1.15039 [↗](https://doi.org/10.20396/joss.v3i1.15039)
26. D’Imperio, Mariapaola & German, James. 2015. Phonetic detail and the role of exposure in dialect imitation. In 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=D%E2%80%99Imperio%2C+Mariapaola+%26+German%2C+James%2E+2015%2E+Phonetic+detail+and+the+role+of+exposure+in+dialect+imitation%2E+In+18th+International+Congress+of+Phonetic+Sciences%2E)
27. Garellek, Marc. 2014. Voice quality strengthening and glottalization. Journal of Phonetics 45. 106–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2014.04.001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2014.04.001)
28. Genolini, Christophe & Falissard, Bruno. 2011. KmL: A package to cluster longitudinal data. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 104(3). e112–e121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cmpb.2011.05.008 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j)
29. Grabe, Esther. 1998. Pitch accent realization in English and German. Journal of Phonetics 26(2). 129–143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1997.0072 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1997.0072)
30. Grabe, Esther & Post, Brechtje & Nolan, Francis & Farrar, Kimberley. 2000. Pitch accent realization in four varieties of British English. Journal of Phonetics 28(2). 161–185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2000.0111 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2000.0111)
31. Grice, Martine. 2017. The intonation of interrogation in Palermo Italian. De Gruyter Mouton. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Grice%2C+Martine%2E+2017%2E+The+intonation+of+interrogation+in+Palermo+Italian%2E+De+Gruyter+Mouton%2E)
32. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1984. On the grammar and semantics of sentence accents. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110859263 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110859263)
33. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2006. Experimental approaches to establishing discreteness of intonational contrasts. Methods in Empirical Prosody Research, 321–334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5070/ P71FP2N3QQ Im, Suyeon & Cole, Jennifer & Baumann, Stefan. 2023. Standing out in context: Prominence in the production and perception of public speech. Laboratory Phonology 14(1). DOI: https://doi. org/10.16995/labphon.6417 [↗](https://doi.org/10.16995/labphon.6417)
34. Kawahara, Hideki & Cheveigné, Alain de & Banno, Hideki & Takahashi, Toru & Irino, Toshio. 2005. Nearly defect-free F0 trajectory extraction for expressive speech modifications based on STRAIGHT. In Ninth european conference on speech communication and technology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2005-335 [↗](https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2005-335)
35. Keyser, Samuel Jay & Stevens, Kenneth Noble. 2006. Enhancement and overlap in the speech chain. Language, 33–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0051 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0051)
36. Kim, Sahyang & Kim, Jiseung & Cho, Taehong. 2018. Prosodic-structural modulation of stop voicing contrast along the vot continuum in trochaic and iambic words in American English. Journal of Phonetics 71. 65–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.07.004 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.07.004)
37. Ladd, D. R. 2022. The trouble with ToBI. In Barnes, Jonathan & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie (eds.), Prosodic theory and practice, 247–258. MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/ mitpress/10413.003.0009 [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10413.003.0009)
38. Ladd, D. R. & Schepman, Astrid. 2003. “sagging transitions” between high pitch accents in English: Experimental evidence. Journal of Phonetics 31(1). 81–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(02)00073-6 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0095-4470(02)00073-6)
39. Lenth, Russell V. 2021. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. [https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans](https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans). R package version 1.7.1-1. [↗](https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans)
40. McAuliffe, Michael & Socolof, Michaela & Mihuc, Sarah & Wagner, Michael & Sonderegger, Morgan. 2017. Montreal forced aligner: Trainable text-speech alignment using kaldi. In Proceedings of INTERSPEECH, 498–502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2017-1386 [↗](https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2017-1386)
41. Moulines, Eric & Charpentier, Francis. 1990. Pitch-synchronous waveform processing techniques for text-to-speech synthesis using diphones. Speech Communication 9(5–6). 453–467. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6393(90)90021-Z [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6393(90)90021-z)
42. Niebuhr, Oliver & d’Imperio, Mariapaola & Fivela, Barbara Gili & Cangemi, Francesco. 2011. Are there “shapers” and “aligners”? Individual differences in signalling pitch accent category. In Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 120–123. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Niebuhr%2C+Oliver+%26+d%E2%80%99Imperio%2C+Mariapaola+%26+Fivela%2C+Barbara+Gili+%26+Cangemi%2C+Francesco%2E+2011%2E+Are+there+%E2%80%9Cshapers%E2%80%9D+and+%E2%80%9Caligners%E2%80%9D%3F+Individual+differences+in+signalling+pitch+accent+category%2E+In+Proceeding)
43. Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Pierrehumbert%2C+Janet+B%2E+1980%2E+The+phonology+and+phonetics+of+English+intonation%3A+Massachusetts+Institute+of+Technology+dissertation%2E)
44. Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Hirschberg, Julia B. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, Philip R. & Morgan, Jerry & Pollack, Martha E. (eds.), Intentions in Communication, MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0016 [↗](https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3839.003.0016)
45. Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Steele, Shirley A. 1989. Categories of tonal alignment in English. Phonetica 46(4). 181–196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000261842 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1159/000261842)
46. Posit team. 2023. Rstudio: Integrated development environment for r. Posit Software, PBC Boston, MA. [http://www.posit.co/](http://www.posit.co/). [↗](http://www.posit.co/)
47. R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria. [https://www.R-project.org/](https://www.R-project.org/). [↗](https://www.R-project.org/)
48. Rathcke, Tamara. 2013. On the neutralizing status of truncation in intonation: A perception study of boundary tones in German and Russian. Journal of Phonetics 41(3–4). 172–185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2013.01.003 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2013.01.003)
49. Sadeghi, Vahid. 2023. Phonetic effects of tonal crowding in persian polar questions. Language and Speech 00238309231213580. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309231213580 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309231213580)
50. Schertz, Jessamyn. 2013. Exaggeration of featural contrasts in clarifications of misheard speech in English. Journal of Phonetics 41(3–4). 249–263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. wocn.2013.03.007 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j)
51. Shue, Yen-Liang & Keating, Patricia & Vicenik, Chad & Yu, Kristine. 2009. Voicesauce. p. Program available online at [http://www.seas](http://www.seas). ucla. edu/spapl/voicesauce/ . UCLA . [↗](http://www.seas)
52. Steffman, Jeremy & Cole, Jennifer. 2022. An automated method for detecting F0 measurement jumps based on sample-to-sample differences. JASA Express Letters 2(11). 115201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0015045 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0015045)
53. Steffman, Jeremy & Cole, Jennifer & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 2024. Intonational categories and continua in American English rising nuclear tunes. Journal of Phonetics 104. 101310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2024.101310 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2024.101310)
54. Steffman, Jeremy & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie & Cole, Jennifer. 2022. The rise and fall of American English pitch accents: Evidence from an imitation study of rising nuclear tunes. Proceedings of Speech Prosody, 857–861. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2022-174 [↗](https://doi.org/10.21437/speechprosody.2022-174)
55. Stevens, Kenneth N. & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1989. Primary features and their enhancement in consonants. Language, 81–106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/414843 [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/414843)
56. Sundberg, Johan. 1973. Data on maximum speed of pitch changes. Speech transmission laboratory quarterly progress and status report 4. 39–47. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sundberg%2C+Johan%2E+1973%2E+Data+on+maximum+speed+of+pitch+changes%2E+Speech+transmission+laboratory+quarterly+progress+and+status+report+4%2E+39%E2%80%9347%2E)
57. Veilleux, Nanette & Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie & Brugos, Alejna. 2006. Transcribing prosodic structure of spoken utterances with ToBI (Version 6.911). Massachusetts Institute of Technology: MIT OpenCourseWare. [https://ocw.mit.edu](https://ocw.mit.edu). [↗](https://ocw.mit.edu)
58. Yu, Jenny & Zahner, Katharina. 2018. Truncation and compression in Southern German and Australian English. In Proceedings of INTERSPEECH, 1833–1837. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21437/ Interspeech.2018-2513 [↗](https://doi.org/10.21437/)
59. Zahner-Ritter, Katharina & Einfeldt, Marieke & Wochner, Daniela & James, Angela & Dehé, Nicole & Braun, Bettina. 2022. Three kinds of rising-falling contours in German wh-questions: Evidence from form and function. Frontiers in Communication 58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/ fcomm.2022.838955 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.838955)

*Updated 1 November 2026*