Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-15T09:14:14.193Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The alignment of L + H* pitch accents in Persian intonation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Nima Sadat-Tehrani
Nima Sadat-Tehrani*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Manitobanisate@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates how the tonal targets of rises in Persian are phonetically realized in relation to the segmental string. Three types of cliticized Persian Accentual Phrases (APs) are instrumentally compared with one another: high-boundary-toned pre-nuclear APs, low-boundary-toned nuclear APs, and low-boundary-toned contrastive focus APs. The results show that the valley is always aligned with the consonant preceding the stressed vowel, but the alignment of the peak is with the consonant following the stressed vowel if the AP boundary tone is low, and with the following vowel if it is high. The duration of the focus AP is greater than that of the other two. The pitch excursion of the focus AP is significantly greater than that of the nuclear type. This difference is caused by different peak heights. While pre-nuclear and nuclear APs can be phonologically represented by L + H*, focus APs, which are pragmatically different, warrant a distinct pitch accent, namely L + ^H*. The systematic alignment of the L and the H, and the variability of the time and slope of the rise support the view that pitch targets rather than pitch movements are the fundamentals of Persian intonation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , August 2009 , pp. 205 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © International Phonetic Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arvaniti, Amalia & Gårding, Gina. 2007. Dialectal variations in the rising accents of American English. In Cole, Jennifer & Hualde, José Ignacio (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology 9 (Phonology and Phonetics), 547–576. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, Ladd, D. Robert & Mennen, Ineke. 1998. Stability of tonal alignment: The case of Greek pre-nuclear accents. Journal of Phonetics 26, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, Ladd, D. Robert & Mennen, Ineke. 2000. What is a starred tone? Evidence from Greek. In Broe & Pierrehumbert (eds.), 119–131.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, Ladd, D. Robert & Mennen, Ineke. 2006. Phonetic effects of focus and ‘tonal crowding’ in intonation: Evidence from Greek polar questions. Speech Communications 48, 667–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atterer, Michaela & Ladd, D. Robert. 2004. On the phonetics and phonology of ‘segmental anchoring’ of F0: Evidence from German. Journal of Phonetics 32, 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avesani, Cinzia & Vayra, Mario. 2003. Broad, narrow and contrastive focus in Florentine Italian. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, 1803–1806.Google Scholar
Baumann, Stefan, Becker, Johannes, Grice, Martine & Mücke, Doris. 2007. Tonal and articulatory marking of focus in German. 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, 1029–1032.Google Scholar
Bel, Bernard & Marlien, Isabelle (eds.). 2002. Speech Prosody 2002 Conference. Aix-en-Provence: Labratoire Parole et Langage.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2007. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 4.5.24). http://www.praat.org (May 2007).Google Scholar
Broe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.). 2000. Papers in Laboratory Phonology 5: Acquisition and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bruce, Gösta. 1977. Swedish word accents in sentence perspective. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Bruce, Gösta. 2003. Late pitch peaks in West Swedish. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, 245–248.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1969. Prosodic systems and intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad. 1982. Syntax and semantics of causative constructions in Persian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
D'Imperio, Mariapaola. 2001. Focus and tonal structure in Neapolitan Italian. Speech Communication 33, 339–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka & Calleja, Nagore. 2005. Microvariation in accentual alignment in Basque Spanish. Language and Speech 48 (4), 397–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eslami, Moharram. 2003. Nahv væ vadʒʃɛnasi: jɛk sæth-ɛ moʃtæræk [Syntax–phonology interface]. In Iranian Linguistic Research: Festschrift for Prof. Ali Ashraf Sadeghi, 141–176. Tehran: Hermes Press.Google Scholar
Eslami, Moharram & Bijankhan, Mahmood. 2002. Nɛzam-ɛ ahæng-ɛ zæban-ɛ farsi [Persian intonation system]. Iranian Journal of Linguistics 34, 36–61.Google Scholar
Face, Timothy. 2001. Focus and early peak alignment in Spanish intonation. Probus 13, 223–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Face, Timothy & Prieto, Pilar. 2007. Rising accents in Castilian Spanish: A revision of Sp_ToBI. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 5.2/6.1, 117–146. [Special issue, Prosody of Ibero-Romance and related languages, edited by Gorka Elordieta & Marina Vigário.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frota, Sónia. 2002. Tonal association and target alignment in European Portuguese nuclear falls. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Warner, Natasha (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology 7 (Phonology & Phonetics), 387–418. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gili Fivela, Barbara. 2002. Tonal alignment in two Pisa Italian peak accents. In Bel & Marlien (eds.), 339–342.Google Scholar
Gili Fivela, Barbara. 2004. The phonetics and phonology of intonation: The case of Pisa Italian. Ph.D. dissertation, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa.Google Scholar
Grabe, Esther. 1998. Pitch accent realization in English and German. Journal of Phonetics 26, 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graziano, Anthony M. & Raulin, Michael L.. 2004. Research methods: A process of inquiry, 5th edn. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Grice, Martine. 1995. The intonation of interrogation in Palermo Italian: Implications for intonational theory. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, Martine, Ladd, D. Robert & Arvaniti, Amalia. 2000. On the place of phrase accents in intonational phonology. Phonology 17, 143–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2000. The boundary tones are coming: On the non-peripheral realization of boundary tones. In Broe & Pierrehumbert (eds.), 132–151.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2007. Types of focus in English. In Lee et al. (eds.), 83–100.Google Scholar
’t Hart, Johan, Collier, René & Cohen, Antonie. 1990. A perceptual study of intonation: An experimental-phonetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Igarashi, Yosuke. 2004. ‘Segmental anchoring’ of F0 under changes in speech rate: Evidence from Russian. In Bel, Bernard & Marlien, Isabelle (eds.), Speech Prosody 2004 Conference, Nara, 25–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishihara, Takeishi. 2003. A phonological effect on tonal alignment in Tokyo Japanese. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, 615–618.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 1996. The phonetics and phonology of Korean prosody. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 2005. Prosodic typology. In Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.), Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing, 430–458. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah, Scarborough, Rebecca, Arbisi-Kelm, Timothy, Esposito, Christina M. & Barjam, Patrick. 2003. Intonational phonology of Farsi. Ms, UCLA.Google Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2003. Syntactic categories and Persian stress. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21 (2), 333–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karimi, Simin. 2005. A minimalist approach to scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 1998. Identificational focus vs. information focus. Language 74, 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert, Faulkner, Dan, Faulkner, Hanneke & Schepman, Astrid. 1999. Constant ‘segmental anchoring’ of F0 movements under changes in speech rates. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106 (3), 1543–1554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert, Mennen, Ineke & Schepman, Astrid. 2000. Phonological conditioning of peak alignment in rising pitch accents in Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107, 2685–2695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladd, D. Robert & Schepman, Astrid. 2003. ‘Sagging transitions’ between high pitch accents in English: Experimental evidence. Journal of Phonetics 31, 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, John. 1994. Principles of phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1992. A grammar of contemporary Persian (English translation). Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers. [Translated from French by Shirley Lyons; first published in 1957 as Grammaire du persan contemporain, Paris, Klinksieck]Google Scholar
Lee, Chungmin, Gordon, Matthew & Büring, Daniel (eds.). 2007. Topic and focus: Cross-linguistic perspectives on meaning and intonation. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lickley, Robin J., Schepman, Astrid & Ladd, D. Robert. 2005. Alignment of ‘phrase accent’ lows in Dutch falling-rising questions: Theoretical and methodological implications. Language and Speech 48 (2), 157–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahjani, Behzad. 2003. An instrumental study of prosodic features and intonation in Modern Farsi (Persian). MS thesis, University of Edinburgh. http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/teaching/postgrad/mscslp/archive/dissertations/2002-3/behzad_mahjani.pdf (15 March 2005).Google Scholar
Mahootian, Shahrzad. 1997. Persian (Descriptive Grammars). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mennen, Ineke. 2004. Bi-directional interference in the intonation of Dutch speakers of Greek. Journal of Phonetics 32, 543–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mücke, Doris, Grice, Martine, Becker, Johannes, Hermes, Anne & Baumann, Stefan. 2006. Articulatory and acoustic correlates of pre-nuclear and nuclear accents. In Hoffman, Rüdiger & Mixdorff, Hansjörg (eds.), Speech Prosody 2006 Conference, Dresden, 297–300.Google Scholar
Nibert, Holly J. 2000. Phonetic and phonological evidence for intermediate phrasing in Spanish intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
Pan, Ho-Hsien. 2007. Focus and Taiwanese unchecked tones. In Lee et al. (eds.), 195–213.Google Scholar
Parmoon, Yadollah. 2006. Jɛk ælgoritm-ɛ æruzi bæra-yɛ tækjɛ-jɛ piʃro-jɛ kælɛmɛ dær farsi-jɛ ɛmruz [A prosodic algorithm for progressive lexical stress in modern Persian]. 2nd Workshop on the Persian Language and Computer, Tehran, June 2006, 262–284.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Published 1988, Indiana University Linguistics Club]Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Beckman, Mary E.. 1988. Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar. 2002. Coarticulation and stability effects in tonal clash contexts in Catalan. In Bel & Marlien (eds.), 587–590.Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar, D'Imperio, Mariapaola & Fivela, Barbara Gili. 2005. Pitch accent alignment in Romance: Primary and secondary associations with metrical structure. Language and Speech 48, 359–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadat-Tehrani, Nima. 2007. The intonational grammar of Persian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manitoba.Google Scholar
Sadat-Tehrani, Nima. 2008. An intonational construction. Constructions 3, 1–13.Google Scholar
Same'i, Hossein. 1996. Tækjɛ-jɛ fɛʔl dær zæban-ɛ farsi: jɛk bærræsi-jɛ modʒæddæd [Verb stress in Persian: A reexamination]. Name-ye Farhangestan 1 (4), 6–21.Google Scholar
Schepman, Astrid, Lickley, Robin J. & Ladd, D. Robert. 2006. Effects of vowel length and ‘right context’ on the alignment of Dutch nuclear accents. Journal of Phonetics 34, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2002. Contrastive FOCUS vs. presentational focus: Prosodic evidence from right node raising in English. In Bel & Marlien (eds.), 643–646.Google Scholar
Vahidian-Kamyar, Taghi. 2001. Næva-jϵ goftar dær farsi [Melody of speech in Persian]. Mashhad: Ferdowsi University Press.Google Scholar
Welby, Pauline. 2002. The realization of early and late rises in French: A production study. In Bel & Marlien (eds.), 695–698.Google Scholar
Welby, Pauline. 2006. French intonational structure: Evidence from tonal alignment. Journal of Phonetics 34, 343–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whalen, Douglas H. & Levitt, Andrea G.. 1995. The universality of intrinsic F0 of vowels. Journal of Phonetics 23, 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, Erik W. 2003. The intonational system of Dominican Spanish: Findings and analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
Xu, Yi. 1998. Consistency of tone-syllable alignment across different syllable structures and speaking rates. Phonetica 55, 179–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xu, Yi. 1999. Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of F0 contours. Journal of Phonetics 27, 55–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus, and word order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar