The Interaction of Prosodic Factors in Lending Prominence to Syllables in Persian Poly-syllabic Words

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Corresponding author: Associate professor of Linguistics, International University of Imam Khomeyni, Ghazvin

2 MA in General Linguistics, International University of Imam Khomeyni, Ghazvin.

Abstract

Extended abstract
 
1- Introduction
Linguistic stress and pitch accent are two prosodic cues to word-level prominence. Lexical stress is a prosodic event that helps disambiguate minimal stress pairs (Silber-Varod, Sagi, and Amir, 2015). It happens in polysyllabic words to lend prominence to a syllable as compared to other syllables in the same word. Thus, lexical stress implies the prominence of one syllable in relation to other syllables within a word. But, prominence is not restricted to the word level. It may also occur at the sentence level. This second kind of prominence is called pitch accent. Accent is an intonational event according to which some words in a sentence are produced with more prominence for pragmatic purposes (Sluijter and van Heuven, 1996). Thus lexical stress belongs to linguistic competence, while accent belongs to linguistic performance (Eslami, 2010; Sadeghi, 2014).
According to the typological classification of Hyman (2014), languages are of two prosodic types: stress-accent and non-stress-accent languages. Stress-accent languages are those in which stress is phonetically realized in a word to make one syllable more prominent than other syllables. In contrast, non-stress-accent languages are those in which syllables are free of any phonetic prominence at the word level, and prominence in these languages is the result of pitch accent at the sentence level.
In addition to lexical stress and pitch accent, the prosodic position of a syllable may also affect its prominence in a word. The present paper addresses the role (or contribution) of stress, accent and syllable position on word level prominence in Persian. Prominence is operationalized in this research through three acoustic parameters, namely F0, duration and overall intensity.
2- Theoretical framework
The present research is carried out within the framework of Laboratory Phonology. Any research within this theoretical framework starts with a phonological hypothesis. This hypothesis is assumed to represent a phonological model of the phonetic pattern in question. Then, a production or perceptual experiment is conducted to evaluate the hypothesis. For this purpose, a sample of data related to the phonological hypothesis is designed and calculated. Some acoustical correlates are selected and measured under experimental control of all factors that are assumed to affect the result of the experiment. The values of the parameters calculated are statistically processed, and the results obtained are used to assess the validity of the hypothesis formulated.
 
3- Methodology
A corpus of 144 sentences was used to evaluate the hypothesis in question. The target words used in the sentences included all the six vowels of the Persian language. There were two types of words in the data: two-syllable words with cv.cv syllable structure and three-syllable words with cv.cv.cvc syllable structure. Stressed and unstressed syllables were embedded in the two-syllable words in final and initial positions respectively, while syllables in the medial position of the three-syllable words were undefined for prominence. All the three-syllable words were formed by adding a stress-bearing mono-syllable affix (inflectional or derivational) to the two-syllable words. All the target words were embedded in two intonational contexts to yield accented and unaccented productions. All acoustic parameters were measured using Praat, version 5.2.12. Measurements were made simultaneously on F0 contour, intensity contour and spectrograph.
 
4- Results & Discussion
The results for F0 showed no syllables except for the final syllable receive a prominence-lending pitch movement. The results for overall intensity indicated that like F0, intensity correlates with accent rather than stress or syllable position. The results for duration suggested that the initial unstressed syllables are longer than final stressed syllables, and that final stressed syllables are longer than medial unstressed syllables. Furthermore, differences in duration between the syllables concerned were found to be significant even in the unaccented condition. These results were interpreted as suggesting that there are two prosodic factors affecting word-level prominence in the paradigmatic axis, namely stress and syllable position, where syllable position outweighs stress in lending more prominence to initial syllables in poly-syllabic words.
 
5- Conclusions & Suggestions
Overall, the results suggested that unlike F0 and intensity, duration in Persian is an acoustic correlate of both stress and syllable position which interacts with each other to determine the prominence of syllables in Persian poly-syllabic words.    

Keywords

References

  1. Abolhasani-Zade, V., Gussenhoven, C., and Bijankhan, M. (2012). The Persian pitch accent and its retention after the focus. Lingua, 122: 13, 1380-1394.
  2. Amir, N., Ben-Chemo, C., and Silber-Varod, V. (2015). Categorical perception of lexical stress: the effect of manipulated duration. In Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPHS2015), paper number 0127.
  3. Astruc, L., and Prieto, P. (2006). Acoustic cues of stress and accent in Catalan. Speech Prosody,  21159, University of Cambridge & ICREA-UAB.
  4. Beckman, M. E. (1986). Stress and non-stress accent. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
  5. Beckman, M., and Edwards, J. (1994). Articulatory evidence for differentiating stress categories. In: Keating, P. A. (ed), Papers in laboratory phonology, vol 3, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Bijankhan, M. (2013). The phonological system of Persian. Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian].
  7. Campell, N., Beckman, M. (1997). Stress, prominence and spectral tilt. In: Botinis, A, G., (eds), Intonation: Theory, Models and applications. ESCA: 67-70.
  8. Canellada, M. J., and Kuhlman-Madsen, J. (1987). Pronunciatiόn del espan͂ol. Lengua habladay literaria. Madrid: Editorial Castalia.
  9. Chahal, D., and Helmuth, S. (2014). Comparing the intonational phonology of Lebanese and Egyptian Arabic. In S. A. Jun (Ed.), Prosodic typology: the phonology of intonation and phrasing, Vol, 2 356-404.
    1. Cutler, A. (2005). Lexical stress., In D. B. Pisoni, & R. E. Remez (Eds.), The handbook of speech perception, 264-289. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    2. De Jong, K. Beckman, M, M. E. and Edwards, J. (1993). The interplay between prosodic structure and coarticulation. Language and Speech, 36:23, 197-212.
    3. De Jong, K. & Zawaydeh, B. A. (1999). Stress, duration, and intonationin Arabic word-level prosody. Journal of phonetics, 27, 3-22.
    4. De Jong, K. (2004). Stress, lexical focus, and segmental focus in English: Patterns of variation vowel duration. Journal of phonetics, 32, 493-516.
    5. Eslami, M. (2010). Stress in Persian. Processing signals and data, 1 (11), 3-12. [In Persian].
    6. Fergusen, C. (1957). Word stress in Persian. Language 33, 123-135.
    7. Fry, D. B. (1955). Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress. J.Acoust. Soc. Am., 27, 765-768.
    8. ـــــــــــــــ. (1958). Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech 1, 126-152.
    9. Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
    10. Hay, J. S. F., and Diehl, R. L. (2007). Perception of rhythmic grouping: Testing the iambic/trochaic law. Percept. Psychophys. 69, 113–122. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194458
    11. Hyman, L.M. (2006). Word –prosodic typology. Phonology, 23, 225-257.
    12. Hyman, Larry M. (2014). Do all languages have word accent? In van der Hulst, H. (ed.) Word Stress: Theoretical and typological issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/ cbo9781139600408.004 .
    13. Issatčenko, A. V., and Schädlich, H. J. (1966). Untersuchungen über die deutsche Satzintonation, Stud. Grammatica 7, 7-64.
    14. Kager, R. (1989). A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
    15. Kahnemuyipour, A. (2003). Syntactic categories and Persian stress. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(2): 333-379.
    16. Kleber, F., and Klipphahn, N. (2006). An acoustic investigation of secondary stress in German.  Institute of Phonetics and Digital Speech Processing, Christian-Alberchts University Kiel, Germany.
    17. Ladefoged, P., and Johnson, K (2011). A course in phonetics (7th edn). United States: Cengage Learning.
    18. Liberman, P. (1960). Some acoustics correlates of word stress in American English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 33,451-4.
    19. Llisterri, J. Machuca, M. de la Mota, C. Riera, M. and Rois, A. (2003) ‘The perception of lexical stress in Spanish’, Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 2023-6. Barcelona.
    20. Mattys, S. L. (2000). The perception of primary and secondary stress in English. Perception & psychophysics, 62(2), 253-265.
    21. Okobi, A. (2006). Acoustic correlates of word stress in American English. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
    22. Ortega-Llebaria, M. and Prieto, P. (2010) ‘Acoustic Correlates of Stress in Central Catalan and Castilian Spanish’, Language and Speech, 54: 1, 73-97.
    23. Peterson, G. E., & Lehiste, I. (1960). Duration of syllable Nuclei in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 32(6), 693-703.
    24. Plag, I., Kunter, G. and Scharmm, M. (2011) ‘Acoustic correlates of primary and secondary stress in North American English’, Journal of Phonetics, 39, 362-374.
    25. Potisuk, S., Gandour, J., and Harper, M. P. (1996). Acoustic correlates of stress in Thai. Phonetica, 53, 200-20.
    26. Rahmani, H. Ritveld, T. and Gussenhoven, C. (2015). Stress “Deafness” reveals absence of lexical marking of stress or tone in adult grammar’, PLOS ONE.DOI:10.1731/journal.pone.0143968.
    27. Recasens, D. (1986). Estudis de fonètica experimental del catalá oriental central. Barcelona: Publicacions del’Abadia de Montserrat.
    28. Sadeghi, V. (2014). The phonetic study of lexical stress in Persian. Language Study, 5 (9), 67-124. [In Persian].
    29. ـــــــــــــــ. (2017). Word-level prominence in Persian: An experimental study. Language and Speech, 60: 4, 571-596 first online published.
    30. Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., and Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274, 1926–1928. DOI: 10.1126/science.274. 5294.1926.
    31. Sameei. H. 1995. "Verb stress in Persian language: re-examination". Journal of the Academy, 1 (4): 6- 21. [In Persian].
    32. Silber-Varod, V., Sagi, H., and Amir, N. (2015). The acoustic correlates of lexical stress in Israel Hebrew. Journal of Phonetic, 56, 1-14.
    33. Sluijter, A., and van Heuven, V. (1996a). Spectral balance as an acoustic correlate of linguistic stress. J. Acoust. Soc.Am., 100: 4, 2471-2485.
    34. ـــــــــــــــ. (1996b).  Acoustic correlates of linguistic stress and accent in Dutch and American English. Proceedings of ICSLP 96, 630-633. Philadelphia, PA: Applied Science and Engineering Labrotaries, Alfred I. DuPont Institute.
    35. Turk, A., and Sawusch, J. (1996). The processing of duration and intensity cues to prominence.  Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99: 6, 3782-3790.
    36. Sluijter, A. van Heuven, V. and Pacily, J. (1997). Spectral balance as a cue in the perception of linguistic stress. J. Acoust. Soc.Am., 101:1, 503-513.
    37. Vaissière, J. (1983). Language-independent prosodic features, in prosody: Models and measurements, edited by A. Cutler, and D. R. Ladd. Springer-Verlag, Hamburg, pp. 53–66. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-69103-4-5. 

 

Persian Language and Iranian Dialects
Volume 2, Issue 2 - Serial Number 4
Serial 4
December 2018
Pages 35-55

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics