Language Log

Several people have asked me about this paper — Maya Inbar, Eitan Grossman, and Ayelet Landau, "A universal of speech timing: Intonation units form low-frequency rhythms", PNAS 8/19/2025:

Intonation units (IUs) are a hypothesized universal building block of human speech [W. Chafe, Discourse, Consciousness and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing (1994); N. P. Himmelmann et al., Phonology 35, 207–245 (2018)). Linguistic research suggests they are found across languages and that they fulfill important communicative functions such as the pacing of ideas in discourse and swift turn-taking. We study the rate of IUs in 48 languages from every continent and from 27 distinct language families. Using an analytic method to annotate natural speech recordings, we identify a low-frequency rate of IUs across the sample, with a peak at 0.6 Hz, and little variation between sexes or across the life span. We find that IU rate is only weakly related to speech rate quantified at the syllable level, and crucially, that cross-linguistic variation in IU rate does not stem from cross-linguistic variation in syllable rate.

Note that 0.6 Hz is 1/0.6 ≈ 1.7 seconds in the time domain.

In "Reading Instruction in the mid 19th century" (8/16/2025), I underlined the old-fashioned focus on "elocution", in which readers were trained "to convey to the hearer, fully and clearly, the ideas and feelings of the writer". Much of today's reading instruction turns that into measures of "oral reading fluency", measured as words correct per minute ("wcpm"). This can result in high-scoring readers like those described in this passage from the Introductory Remarks in 1844 edition of McGuffey's Rhetorical Guide, which warns against the consequences of failure to teach "elocution" from the very start:

In "AI win of the week" I explored the inter-personal dimensions of Rousseau's 1754 contention that "there is neither rhythm nor melody in French music, because the language is not capable of them". In the comments, AntC objected that "But, but. Rousseau wrote an opera, in French, to his own Libretto. audio + full score available on Youtube".

For now, I have only two comments on this. First, trolls are often happy to abandon consistency in the service of pwning their audience. And second, the 1754 edition of Rousseau's screed, published two years after the debut of his opera, goes into considerable detail about how he painfully transferred the musicality of Italian prosody to the composition and performance of a work with French lyrics.

But rather than diving further into Rousseau's argument about the relative musicality of different languages' prosody, the point of today's post is to note its resonance with another mid-18th century prosodic dispute, namely Joshua Steele's refutation of James Burnett's claim that English prosody gives its syllables "nothing better than the music of a drum, in which we perceive no difference except that of louder or softer, according as the instrument is more or less forcibly struck".

"Shakespearean focus" featured a 2016 skit in which different actors promoted different focus choices in Hamlet's famous line:

PAAPA ESSIEDU: «To be or not to be that is the question»…
TIM MINCHIN: Right sorry, sorry. I mean – y-yes… I’m – yes – but if you don’t mind a note: O-OR: «To be OR not to be.»
BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH: Try this: «To be or NOT to be, that is the question.»
DAVID TENNANT: Calm down, right. It’s simple. Don’t lose focus: «To be or not to be, THAT is the question.»
RORY KINNEAR: No, no, no, no, no. Idiots! «To be or not to be, that IS the question.»
SIR IAN MCKELLEN: Lend me your ears: «To be or not to be, that is THE question.»
DAME JUDI DENCH: «To be or not TO be.»
PRINCE CHARLES: «To be or not to be, that is the QUESTION.»

David Z. commented:

This reminds one (i.e., me) of the scene in WC Fields's film The Old Fashioned Way, about a troupe of actors, where benefactor Cleopatra Pepperday is promised a role, reciting the line "Here comes the prince." She practices the line many times, emphasizing different words, although she never actually gets to deliver it on stage.

Something for everyone

In comments on "Affected brogue", 12/19/2024, Benjamin Orsatti and others put Bernard Mayes forward as a quintessential RP speaker, including this advice:

[I]f you'd like to listen to, say, 150 consecutive hours of Bernard Mayes (the man narrates my dreams now), you can do what I'm doing and borrow "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" audiobook, Blackstone edition from your local library.

This seemed like a good way to use one of the Audible credits that I've somehow accumulated, so I downloaded Mayes' narration of volume 3 of that work, all 39:03:05.09 of it. Listening to a few minutes of it, I was reminded of a joke that I (believe I) heard from Michael Studdert-Kennedy:

The archetypal Englishman, being forbidden by custom to wave his hands, waves his larynx instead.

From Lane Greene on Bluesky (link):

I've been trying for a while to figure out a theory of Trump's capitalisation. It's mostly nouns like Country, but not always positive ones. I never did nail down the pattern.

But I've got a new theory – bear with me here.

ALL CAPS IS FOR UNGRATEFUL WOMEN.

[image or embed]

— Lane Greene (@lanegreene.bsky.social) September 21, 2024 at 12:10 PM

Sino-Platonic Papers is pleased to announce the publication of its three-hundred-and-forty-seventh issue:

"Metric Montage in Chinese Poetry," by Conal Boyce.

https://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp347_metric_montage_chinese_poetry.pdf

Keywords: Chinese poetry; metric montage; Shěn Zhōu; Lǐ Bái; Lǐ Hè; Frodsham

Continuing my anecdotal exploration of "focus"-like phenomena in French, I dove into a random point in the middle of a random Radio France podcast ("Libre Pensée – L’Europe, l’Union européenne et les élections européennes", 4/14/2024). And within a few seconds, I heard this, where the apparent "focus" on là caught my attention:

Euh mais pour bien comprendre il faut là encore revenir à l'histoire —
décidément nous faisons un peu un cours d'histoire aujourd'hui

(Google translation for those who need it…)

Focus is perhaps the single most perniciously ambiguous word in the field of linguistics. In Beth Ann Hockey's 1998 dissertation, "The interpretation and realization of focus: an experimental investigation of focus in English and Hungarian", she wrote:

Linguists have associated the word “focus” with a wide variety of phenomena. In addition a wealth of other terms including “new,” “emphasis,” “stress,” “rheme,” “comment,” “accented,” “prominent,” “informative” and “contrast” have been attached singly or in combination to phenomena that seem to be the same as, similar to or overlapping with those that have been called focus.

Beth Ann quotes a few relevant passages from Lewis Carroll, including

‘That's a great deal to make one word mean,’ Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
‘When I make a word do a lot of work like that,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘I always pay it extra.’

The topic of this post is one that deeply fascinates me personally, but also has a bearing on many of the main concerns of the denizens of Language Log:  information, efficiency, density, complexity, meaning, pronunciation, prosody, speed, gender….

It was prompted by this new article:

What’s the Fastest Language in the World?
Theansweriscomplicated. [sic]
by Dan Nosowitz, Atlas Obscura (April 2, 2024)

The article is based upon the work of François Pellegrino a senior researcher in linguistics and cognitive science at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris and Université Lumière Lyon II, France.

Francois Pellegrino is mostly a quantitative linguist, meaning his work often includes measuring differences among languages and hunting for explanations behind those differences. He’s worked on language speed a few times, including on one study that compared 17 different languages in a variety of metrics.

It's clear that text-to-speech programs have gotten better and better over the past 60 years, technical details aside. The best current systems rarely make phrasing or letter-to-sound mistakes, and generally produce speech that sounds pretty natural on a phrase-by-phrase basis. (Though there's a lot of variation in quality, with some shockingly bad systems in common use.)

But even the best current systems still act like they don't get George Carlin's point about "Rhetoric as music". Their problem is not that they can't produce verbal "music", but that they don't (even try to) understand the rhetorical structure of the text.  The biggest pain point is thus what linguists these days call "information structure", related also to what the Prague School linguistics called "communicative dynamism".

From Jon Stewart's 1997 interview with George Carlin (starting at about 1:17.6):

well- well uh to- to go backward with the question,
don't forget, what we do is oratory.
It's rhetoric.
It's not just comedy, it's a form of rhetoric
and- and with rhetoric, you- you look and you listen for rhythms,
you- you look for ways
to sing at the same time you're talking, and to go
[skat-like phrases, based on rhythmic patterns of /d/-initial syllables…]