The analysis of low-frequency amplitude envelopes has become a widespread method in the speech sciences, language acquisition, and neurolinguistics. Amplitude envelopes track an utterance’s amplitude distribution and hence the part of the signal that conveys speech rhythm. Given different methodological decisions, studies are sometimes difficult to compare. This chapter summarizes acoustic and statistic procedures used in the field and focuses on which factors influence the amplitude envelopes in which way, comparing data on aspects that relate to speech rhythm (a language’s rhythm class, speech styles, and phonemic segment length). It furthermore tests the specificity of amplitude envelopes for tracking speech rhythm by analyzing control data with different pitch accent types (that are not expected to influence rhythm). The comparison of various factors with the same procedures allows us to order factors with respect to the magnitude of differences in amplitude modulation spectra and the frequency bands in which differences occur.

Even though we read silently, we nevertheless "hear" words on the page. Our brains use both visual and phonological loops for processing sentences, enabling us to perceive the rhythm of sentences. We primarily perceive the cadence of sentences through variations in sentences’ lengths and beginnings. Moreover, this rhythm reflects not the writer’s education or skill with words but, instead, the sources that writers read frequently. Because of this influence, writers can shift the cadence of their sentences by choosing their reading carefully, or even choosing to read books or articles that counter their usual cadence.

Existing literature points to guilty pleas leading to plea-trial disparity in sentences, with scholars referring to this as a ‘trial penalty’ or a ‘trial/jury tax’, while courts and policymakers use the terms ‘sentence discounts’ or ‘sentence reductions’. This chapter argues that plea trial and plea-timing disparities have negative consequences for the justice system, as well as that the sentence disparity should be conceptualised as a trial and late-plea penalty. Using the datasets from the Crown Court Sentencing Survey (CCSS) and the Hong Kong District Court compiled for this study, this chapter investigates the effects that the timing of guilty pleas may have on sentence outcomes. Interestingly, a late-plea penalty was found for England and Wales, whereas only a trial penalty was found for Hong Kong. The chapter concludes by discussing the implications of these results.