abolhasanizadeh

8/13/2019 abolhasanizadeh

1/16

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached

copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research

and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or

licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third partywebsites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the

article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or

institutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are

encouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
http://www.elsevier.com/copyrighthttp://www.elsevier.com/copyright


2/16

Author's personal copy

The Persian pitch accent and its retention after the focus

Vahideh Abolhasanizadeh a,b, Mahmood Bijankhan c, Carlos Gussenhoven b,d,*a Department of English Language and Literature, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Iran

b Department of Linguistics, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlandsc Department of Linguistics, University of Tehran, Iran

d School of Languages, Linguistics and Film, Queen Mary University of London, UK

Received 3 February 2012; received in revised form 4 June 2012; accepted 5 June 2012

Available online 6 July 2012

Abstract

Persian words have prominence on the last syllable. Right-edge clitics fall outside this word domain, and segmentally identical words

and word-plus-clitic combinations therefore contrast for the location of the prominence. Two experiments were conducted to answer two

questions. A production experiment addressedthe question whether any phonetic cues other than f0 signal this prominence contrast. Wefound small phonetic differences between members of minimal pairs outside the more evident f0 differences, but attribute these to side

effects of pitch accent placement. The second question was whether post-focal words undergo deaccentuation, as evidenced by

neutralization of the contrast between post-focal words and word-plus-clitic combinations. Both the production experiment and aperception experiment showed that there is Post Focus Compression, since pitch excursions in the post-focal speech were considerably

reduced, both in interrogative and in declarative utterances, as compared to other positions in the sentence. However, no neutralizationoccurred. We tentatively conclude that Persian word prominences are pitch accents and that words are not deaccented when the pitch

range is reduced after the focus.

2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Clitic group; Phonological word; Prosodic hierarchy; Focus; Pitch range

1. Introduction

Persian sentence prosody has been described as involving accentual phrases which have a single intonational pitchaccent on a stressed syllable (Mahjani, 2003). After the focus constituent, deaccentuation has been claimed to occur(Sadat Tehrani, 2007). In this contribution, we address two issues in the word and sentence prosody of Persian. The first isthe phonological and phonetic status of the Persian word prominence. The question here is whether the prominence is

typologically like West Germanic or Catalan stress, with multiple phonetic parameters conspiring to create it, or a pitchaccent that is signaled only through fundamental frequency (f0). Second, we are interested in knowing whether the wordprominence disappears after the focus constituent, to the extent that minimal stresspairs become homophonous.

1.1. Persian stress

Persian word prominence has generally been described as the assignment of stress to the final syllables of nouns,adjectives, most adverbs and unprefixed verbs (Ferguson, 1957; Lazard, 1957; Samei, 1996). Prefixed verbs take stress

www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Lingua 122 (2012) 1380--1394

* Corresponding author at: Afdeling Taalwetenschap, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Postbus 9103, 6500 HD Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Tel.: +31 0243612839/237240; fax: +31 0627205464.

E-mail address: [email protected](C. Gussenhoven).

0024-3841/$ -- see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.06.002


3/16


on the prefix.Kahnemuyipour (2003)argued that the uniformity in stress placement in nouns and its variability in verbsfollows from a morphological difference between these word types and the resulting difference in the way they map ontoprosodic structures. Specifically, prefixes are separate phonological words in his analysis, and a phrase-level stress ruleputs the stress on the final syllable of the initial phonological word in a phonological phrase.

While the assignment of stress thus follows transparently from the morphological (or prosodic) structure, the issue

addressed here is the interpretation of the term stress in these and other descriptions of Persian word prosody. In

general, word-level prominent syllables have variably been characterized as having accentor stress. The distinctionbetween these has been sought in the extent to which the prominent syllable is phonetically cued by pitch features aloneor, alternatively, whether other phonetic cues like duration and spectral properties are consistently present. Beckman(1986) termed these prominences non-stress accent and stress accent, respectively. A different perspective is obtainedwhen distributional and phonological properties are taken into account. Stress has been characterized as beingobligatory, meaning that, not counting function words that cannot be citation utterances, every word has a stressedsyllable, and culminative, meaning that there is one most prominent syllable in the word (Hyman, 2006). By contrast, anaccented syllable need not be present on every word, allowing the existence of unaccented words, either due todeaccentuation of lexically accented words or to the fact that words can be lexically unaccented and not acquire accents inthe sentence prosody.Hyman (2006)discusses cases of obligatoriness and culminativity where there is no evidence ofphonetic stress, i.e. when the prominence is not a stress accent, in Beckman's (1986) sense. Some of these are ruled outas stress systems on the basis of the location of the accent. If that is a mora, as in Somali, the prominence is not stress,since stress is a property of syllables (Hayes, 1995; Hyman, 2006). Nubi represents a case of a culminative and obligatorysystem where the prominent element is the syllable and prominent syllables are not systematically differentiated bydurational or spectral properties from non-prominent syllables (Hyman, 2006; Gussenhoven, 2006). The historicalexplanation here is that Nubi is a creolized form of Arabic in which the Arabic stress locations have been interpreted as H-toned syllables by speakers of East African tone languages (Wellens, 2005). However, there are likely to be more cases ofphonological stress that are not signaled by phonetic stress, i.e. by f0 only.Levi (2005)presents phonetic data on Turkishwhich make her conclude that this language has a pitch accent, not (phonetic) stress.

In line with the recent emphasis on language diversity, we present evidence that the word prominence of Persian isboth obligatory and culminative in the sense ofHyman (2006), while also being a non-stress accent in the sense ofBeckman (1986). In current usage, it will be argued to be pitch accent, a concept and term that was introduced byBolinger (1958) in reference to the tonal component in accented syllables in English. In autosegmental phonology, it is theterm for any tonal melody that is associated with an accented syllable, whether that syllable is stressed, as it is in English

(Bolinger, 1958; Pierrehumbert, 1980) and Jordanian Arabic (De Jong and Zawaydeh, 1999), or lexically determined, as itis in Japanese (Pierrehumbert and Beckman, 1988; Kubozono, 1993) and which is not analyzable as a boundary tone.1

This point we will try to make on the basis of Experiment I.

1.2. Post-Focus Compression

The second issue addressed by our investigation concerns the phonological status of Post-Focus Compression (PFC)in Persian. Xu et al. (2012) suggest that the reduction of the pitch range after the focus constituent, as found for instance inGermanic languages, may in fact be an areal feature covering Europe as well as a northern and central swathe of Asia.Thus, Beijing Mandarin is a PFC language (as are Japanese, Bengali and Mongolian), but Taiwanese and TaiwaneseMandarin are not. We will show that Persian is a PFC language, in line with Xu et al.s hypothesis. The question at issue inour investigation, however, one that is not considered by Xu et al., is whether PFC involves the removal of the tonal

structure in the post-focal words. This we believe is the case in English. While the noun phrase a Spnish tacherisdistinct from the compound a Spnish teacherin isolation, in a sentence like Ive already HEARD that story about theSpanish teacher, it is no longer possible to tell which structure is used, because after focal heardno pitch accents occur,

V. Abolhasanizadeh et al. / Lingua 122 (2012) 1380--1394 1381

1 We use the term pitch accentin this meaning only. In particular, we do not mean to refer to any distributional or other criterion that might be

assumed to allow a meaningful classification of a pitch accent language(Hyman, 2009). In the meaning we use the term, that of tones that are

systematically present in some syllable or mora and which cannot be analyzed as boundary tones, English, Japanese, Jordanian Arabic, Nubi,

Turkish and Somali all have pitch accents. While making clear which meaning we intend, we use the term stressboth in the sense of phonetic

stress, i.e. phonetically enhanced duration and spectral measures as occurring in, e.g. English, and in the sense of culminative obligatory word

prominence as occurringin English, Nubi,Turkish and, as we will argue,Persian. An issue that is not always giventhe creditit deserves is whether

an accentual analysis is to be preferred over an analysis with underlyingly linked tones, which will depend on the existence of generalizations

about the location of the word prominence that abstract away from the tones that are found there (Goldsmith, 1975; Gussenhoven, 2004:37). As

Hyman (2006) stresses, a tonal analysis can in principle always replace a word prosodic accentual analysis, but a tonal analysis can becumbersome when there are many generalizations about their permitted locations and the pitch accent consists of more than one tone, as in

Japanese, or when there are more options for the pitch accent, as in Barasana (Gomez-Imbert and Kisseberth, 2000).


4/16


leaving Spanish and teacherwith unaccented stressed syllables in both sentences (James Sledd, cited from Hill [1962:36]bySchmerling, 1976:27). By contrast, in Beijing Mandarin, PFC reduces the pitch range without deleting the tones of thewords. Tonal minimal pairs like ma1 motherand ma3 horsethus remain phonologically distinct if they are used post-focally (Chen and Guion-Anderson, 2012). Similarly, Bizkaian Basque retains the distinction between accented andunaccented words under PFC (Elordieta and Hualde, 2003). If Persian has pitch accents without phonetic stress, the

issue arises whether these accents are retained under PFC in a phonetically reduced form or whether instead they aredeleted. If they are deleted, contrasts that rely on a difference in the location of the pitch accent will be neutralized. OurExperiment II was run to address this issue from a perceptual viewpoint. The results converge so as to allow theconclusion that Persian does not deaccent after the focus, but retains phonetically reduced pitch accents in post-focalspeech that allow accentual minimal pairs to be disambiguated to a certain extent.

1.3. Intonation

Persian has been described as having three levels of prosodic hierarchy that are relevant to the intonational structure,the accentual phrase, the intermediate phrase and the intonational phrase (Mahjani, 2003; Sadat Tehrani, 2007:36). Theword-final syllable has been claimed to be associated with a pitch accent ( Eslami and Bijankhan, 2002), but there areconflicting analyses of its tonal structure. Eslami (2000) posits four pitch accents, H*, L*, L*+H and L+H*, in addition to twotones marking intermediate phrases, L- and H-, as well as two boundary tones of the intonational phrase, L% and H%. Themeanings of the tonal morphemes given by Eslami (2000), inspired by Hirschberg and Pierrehumbert (1986) andPierrehumbert and Hirschberg (1990), are reproduced in (1).

(1) H* new informationL* given informationL+H* contrastL*+H doubtH- incompletenessL- completenessL% statementH% question

In contrast to (1), Sadat Tehrani (2007) posits a single pitch accent, L+H*, which has two morpheme alternants, L+H* inpolysyllabic accentual phrases and H* in monosyllabic ones. Another claim by Sadat Tehrani (2007)is that post-focalwords are deaccented, while any internal boundary tones are deleted after the focus. We will evaluate some of the claimsin the literature in section5.

1.4. The clitic group

Our investigation relies on a contrast between plain words and cliticized words. Combinations of words and clitics havebeen described as clitic groups. The exclusion of right-edge clitics from stress or accent assignment was noted by Lazard(1957:48) and Shaqaqi (1993:46). Bijankhan and Nourbakhsh (2009) make stress the main defining feature of thephonological word, pointing out that since clitics remain unstressed, they must lie outside the domain of the phonologicalword. As an alternative, stress assignment can be described as being morphologically determined. This would mean thata pitch accent is assigned to the last syllable of lexical category words, and that cliticized words and non-cliticized wordsare both phonological words.2 Because the surface segmental structures of words and word-clitic combinations are notsystematically different, many examples of minimal pairs can be given, like golflower, which gives [goli] one flower,withaclitic [i], and [gol] proper name, which has a suffix. We illustrate the systematic nature of accent assignment in (2a, b, c, d),where (2a) provides two isolated words, (2b) two suffixed words, (2c) two words with a clitic, and (2d) a compound. As thesedata show, words and suffixed words have final accented syllables, compounds fail to have an accent on their firstconstituent, while clitics are not assigned accent, causing the accent in cliticized words to be on the final syllable of the host.This lattergeneralizationremains true if a word hastwo clitics, as in [ketb-i-je] ofonebook. Forconvenience, we will refer toword+clitic combinations as clitic groups, without committing ourselves to the inclusion of this constituent in the prosodichierarchy of Persian.

V. Abolhasanizadeh et al. / Lingua 122 (2012) 1380--13941382

2

The fact that the assignment of a pitch accent to final syllables of words skips right-edge clitics does not form the sole motivation for assumingthe existence of a clitic group forBijankhan and Nourbakhsh (2009). A second motivation is provided by syncope, the deletion of a word-final

vowel before a clitic-initial vowel.


5/16


(2) a. k etb book xun houseb. ketb-h books xune-h housesc. ketb-i one book xun-j-i one housed. ketbxun library

1.5. Addressing the research questions

We here report the results of two experiments. Experiment I was a production experiment, the first acousticinvestigation of Persian word prominence, which was undertaken to answer two questions. First, we wanted to determinewhether the word prominent syllable of Persian has phonetic stress in addition to being pitch accented. Second, wewanted to establish whether Persian has Post-Focus Compression in the words after the focus constituent. Experiment IIwas a perception experiment. It was undertaken to investigate the question whether PFC involves the neutralization of thedifference between plain words and cliticized words.

2. Experiment I

The aim of Experiment I was to collect detailed phonetic information about the realization of words and word+clitic

combinations that is representative of the speech of Tehran, so as to enable us to establish the phonetic differencesbetween them. Since the presence of a H-tone or a L-tone may be accompanied by small and partly systematicphonetic differences as compared to a toneless syllable (Beckman, 1986; Levi, 2005), we decided to place theinvestigation in a wider perspective. Specifically, we expected small and partly systematic phonetic differences thataccompany other structural differences, like segmental distinctions or focus differences. We would like to be able toevaluate the status of any differences between our stressedand unstressedsyllables either as side effects of otherstructural options, in this case the presence of a pitch accent, or as intrinsically due to differences in the location ofphonological stress.

For this purpose, in addition to the difference in the location of the word prominence (PW vs CG), we included asegmental difference in the intervocalic consonant separating the two potential accent positions ([p] vs. [b]), the focuscondition of the target words, and sentence mode (declarative vs. interrogative). The phonetic measures that arepotentially affected by these structural differences include f0, duration, intensity and spectral properties. All of these wereincluded in our investigation.

2.1. Materials

We composed a corpus of sentences featuring two minimal pairs contrasting a noun (henceforth the wordor PWcondition) and a noun+clitic combination (henceforth the clitic groupor CGcondition). These two pairs of minimal pairscontrasted only in the voicing of the obstruent in the onset of the second syllable, which in the CG was the last consonantof the lexical word. These materials were part of a larger corpus testing more conditions. Since no obvious quadrupletswere available in the segmental condition we report here, one of the four target words was a nonsense word. The targetwords were [tb] light vs. [tb-e] swing+his/her and [tp] (nonsense word) vs. [tp-e] tank-top+his/her. They wereembedded in declarative and interrogative carrier sentences which varied across three focus conditions, referred to asneutral (3a), post-focal (3b) and focal (3c). In (3), we show the voiced minimal pair in its declarative embeddingsentences. The total number of sentences was thus 3 (focus conditions) 2 (word structures) 2 (voicing conditions)

2 (sentence modes) = 24. For the neutral and post-focal carrier sentence we usedUn X-e That is X, where-eis a clitic.This makes all target words part of trisyllabic clitic groupsthat contrast in having the H* on the antepenultimate syllable(the CG condition) or on the penultimate syllable (the PW condition). By having an accentual phrase-final unaccentedsyllable in all cases, we abstract away from local phrase-finality effects on the duration and f0 of the two target syllables.Condition (3c) differs from (3a,b) in having un thatin final position, which allows Xto be focused and X-e to be in firstposition in the sentence, the focus position.

(3) a. un tb-e un tb-e-ethat light-is that swing-his/her-is

That is light That is his/her swingb. un tb-e un tb-e-e

THAT is light THAT is his/her swing

c. tb-e un tb-e-e unThat is LIGHT That is his/her SWING



6/16


The sentences were presented to subjects in standard Persian orthography, which uses Arabic letters. Conditions (3a)and (3b) were distinguished by having bold print for the target word in (3a) and bold print forun in (3b), reproduced here inthe transcription. These twelve sentences were given twice, once with a question mark ([ ) and oncewith a full stop (.) at theend, in order to elicit both declarative and interrogative intonation contours. Subjects read each sentence twice in aprofessional recording studio at the University of Tehran.

2.2. Speakers and recordings

Twelve speakers took part in the experiment, six male and six female. Their ages ranged from 26 to 37 and they wereall educated native speakers recruited from students and staff in the Linguistics Department of the University of Tehran.Speakers were freely allowed to repeat themselves if they thought they hadnt read a sentence correctly. The two bestversions were selected from the utterances of each sentence by each speaker. In the majority of cases, these were theonly readings produced for the sentence. After inspecting these 576 utterances, we decided to discard 31 of thembecause of disfluencies or technical problems, which left us with 545 utterances for analysis. We supplied the means overspeakers for the 5.4% missing utterances.

2.3. Procedure

Utterances were segmented with the help of Praat (Boersma and Weenink, 1992--2009). Instead of establishing onlythe start of the closure duration and the end of the stop burst of plosives, the boundary between closure and burst wasincluded as a segmental boundary, for both voiced and voiceless plosives. In the case of voiced plosives, this meant thatwe had burst intervals of zero duration in a number of cases. Initial plosives were only measured for their bursts, since noreliable indication of the beginning of the closure is available. An example of a TextGrid with wave form is shown inFig. 1.We included separate tiers for segments, words and clitic [e].

Subsequently, we averaged all values over the repetitions. Because of the way we supplied averaged values for themissing data, we have potentially reduced the variation. We adopted a 1% significance level for all analyses, but includeresults at 5%, which may be seen as trends.

3. Experiment I: results

We report the results for duration, intensity, spectral measures and f0. For duration, we first present the results ofoverall analyses of variance in which SEGMENTis included as a 7-level variable in order to identify interactions betweensegment durations and any of the four experimental variables. The same procedure is followed for intensity and thespectral formants (F1, F2 and F3) for the two vowels in the potentially accented syllables, as well as for Centre of Gravity(COG), with three levels for segment ([t]-burst, [p/b]-burst and [

R]). The COG is a measure of indicating the mean spectral

frequency over some time span. The measure is particularly useful for segments without well-defined formant structure,like those with voiceless friction (van Son and Pols, 1999).


[

u n t t b e e

un t be

e

Time (s)

0 2.112

Fig. 1. Praat TextGrid for a declarative neutral utterance of [un tb-e] That is light.


7/16


3.1. Duration

An analysis of variance (repeated measures) was performed on the durations of the segmented sections of the targetwords, with SEGMENT([t]-burst, [], [p/b]-closure, [p/b]-burst, [e], [], clitic [e]), WORD STRUCTURE(PW VSCG), SENTENCE MODE(declarative vs interrogative), FOCUS (neutral, post-focal, focal) and VOICE (voiced vs voiceless) as factors. Mauchly's test forsphericity was significant only for SEGMENT; we adopted the Greenhouse-Geisser correction in all cases. There wereinteractions between SEGMENTand WORD STRUCTURE(F[6,66] = 6.755;p < 0.001), SEGMENTand FOCUS(F[12,132] = 72.543;

p < 0.001), SEGMENT and SENTENCE MODE (F[6,66] = 100.667; p < 0.001) and SEGMENT and VOICING (F[6,66] = 56.165;p < 0.001) as well as main effects for SEGMENT (F[6,22] = 123.31; p < 0.001), FOCUS (F[2,22] = 51.01; p < 0.001) andSENTENCE MODE(F[1,11] = 35.76;p < 0.001). This means that, unsurprisingly, segments have unequal durations, but moreimportantly that some or all of our seven segment durations vary systematically with the word type of the target word, withthe focus condition, with the sentence mode and with whether [p] or [b] occurs in the target words. To establish whichsegments vary under which condition we carried out repeated measures analyses of variance for each of the segmentaldurations separately. The results are presented inTable 1.

Table 1 shows that the voicing of the labial closureaffects the duration of the closure and the burst. The closure phase

of [p] is 12 ms longer than that of [b], and the burst is 39 ms longer (see Fig. 2). The segment [p] is 105 ms, [b] 54 ms intotal. The preceding vowel 27 ms longer before [b] (149 ms) than before [p] (122 ms). This result follows widespreadtendencies for voiceless plosives to be longer and preceding vowels to be shorter compared to the situation for voicedplosives (Luce and Charles-Luce, 1985; Kluender et al., 1988). Unexpectedly, the effect of the voicing of the plosive wasalso found on the following vowel, [e], which is 11 ms longer after [b] (97 ms) than after [p] (84 ms).

The effect of the focus condition is due to two quite different factors. Focus condition is partly confounded with positionin the sentence, because the focal target words are sentence-initial rather than sentence-final, as in the other twoconditions. The effects on [e], [] and the final clitic [e] are due to final lengthening in the neutral and post-focal conditions.A post hoc test (Sidak) shows that in all three cases, the focal condition differs from the other two conditions (p < 0.01),


[

0

50

100

150

200

250

t burst p/b p/b burst

e e

Duration(ms)

Fig. 2. Mean segment durations for the target words pooled over 12 speakers for voiced (---) and voiceless (- - -) labial plosives separately.

Table 1

Effects of Voicing of labial plosive, Focus condition, Sentence mode and Word structure on durations of seven phonetic segments in the target

words [tp-e], [tp-e-e], [tb-e], [tb-e-e].

Segment Voicing df 1,11 Focus df 2,22 Sentence mode df 1,11 Word structure df 1,11

[t]-burst ns F= 5.646* ns F= 20.446**

[] F= 188.34** ns F= 8.71* ns[p/b]-closure F= 20.92** F= 4.12* ns F= 15.156**

[p/b]-burst F= 170.19** ns F= 6.81* F= 6.13*

[e] F= 27.071** F= 15.491** ns F= 5.189*

[] ns F= 61.506** F= 14.872** F= 7.74*

[e] ns F= 51.225** F= 117.3** ns

* p< 0.05.** p< 0.01.


8/16


which however do not differ between themselves. In the focal condition, these three segments are respectively 8 ms,

10 ms and 16 ms shorter than in the other two conditions (see Fig. 3). The second explanatory factor is only present as atrend, and concerns the lesser articulatory care taken over the post-focal target words. However, the effects here are verysmall, as seen inFig. 3, with [p/b] being 4 ms shorter and the [t]-burst 10 ms shorter in the post-focal condition than in thefocal condition.

Third,the effectofsentence mode is located in thefinalsyllable, as indicatedin Table1 anddepictedin Fig.4.Theonset[]is 7 ms longer and the final [e] is 95 ms longer in the interrogative condition than in the declarative condition. Increased finallengthening in questionswould appearto be a general tendency (e.g. Smith, 2002), which hasbeen phonologizedin varietiesofWestGreenlandic(Rischel, 1974:79; seealso Fortescue, 1984:4). By contrast,the effecton [] isa reduction of8 msin theinterrogative condition. In fact, overall, non-final syllables tend to be longer in declaratives than in interrogatives, suggestingthat the lengthening of the final syllable is heralded by an accelerando in thepre-final syllables.3 van Heuven andvan Zanten(2005)in fact propose faster speech rate as a near-universal characteristic of questions.


0

50

100

150

200

250

t burst p/b p/b burst e e

Duration(ms)

Fig. 3. Mean segment durations for the target words pooled over 12 speakers for neutral focus (---), post-focal (- - -) and focal ( ) pronunciations

separately.[

0

50

100

150

200

250


Duration(ms)

Fig. 4. Mean segment durations for the target words pooled over 12 speakers for declarative (---) and interrogative (- - -) sentences separately.

3 A pattern of shorter non-final syllables and a longer final syllable in interrogatives compared to declaratives was earlier reported by Stoel

(2007)for the East Timorese language Fataluku.


9/16


Finally, is there evidence that the location of the accent is accompanied by inherent differences in duration of thesyllable rime? The answer must be negative, even though we did find interpretable effects of word structure. In the CG-condition, in which [t] has the pitch accent, the [t]-burst is 9 ms longer than in the PW-condition (seeFig. 5; the 6 mslonger [] just failed to reach significance (F= 4.735;p = 0.052)). Conversely, in the PW-condition, in which [be] has theaccent, the labial closure is 7 ms and the [e] 6 ms longer than in the CG condition. The following [] compensates partly forthis lengthening by being 3 ms shorter in the PW-condition.

3.2. Spectral measures

Spectral measures have been used to detect differences in articulator shape or position. We report Centre of Gravitymeasurements and formant measurements. Centre of Gravity measures for the [t]-burst, [p/b]-burst and [] were subjected to

a repeated measures analysis of variance with SEGMENT ([t]-burst, [p/b]-burst, []), VOICE (voiced vs voiceless), FOCUS (neutral,post-focal, focal), SENTENCE MODE(declarative vs interrogative) and WORD STRUCTURE(PW VS CG) as factors. Apart from theobvious effect ofSEGMENT, we found an interaction between FOCUS and SEGMENT (F[2,22] = 6.851;p < 0.01), whichappeared tobe due to a 330 Hz lower COG for [t]-burst in the focal condition. Since the focal condition has the target word in sentence-initial position, this effect must be due to the occurrence of [t] at the beginning of the utterance. The same procedure wasfollowedfor F1, F2, and F3, but with [] and [e] asthelevels forSEGMENT. (Weexcluded the final [e], as it wasnever accented.)In the case of F1, there was a main effect forVOICE (F= 5.339,p < 0.05) and a significant interaction betweenSEGMENTandWORD STRUCTURE (F[1,11] = 15.904;p < 0.01). In the case of F2, there was a main effect forVOICE (F[1,11] = 13.811,p < 0.01)and significant interactions between SEGMENT and VOICE (F[1,11] = 14.531;p < 0.01) and between SEGMENT and FOCUS (F[2,22]= 6.268;p < 0.01). In the case of F3, there was a main effect forFOCUSonly (F[2,22] = 6.148;p < 0.01). The results of theseparate analyses of variance of the three formants for the individual vowels are given inTables 1 and 2.

The effect of thevoicing of the labial plosiveis confined to [e], whose F2 is 92 Hz higher and whose F3 is 33 Hz higher

before the voiceless consonant than the voiced consonant. This means that the vowel is slightly more centralized after [b]than after [p]. As for the focus condition, we found that the F1 of focal [] is marginally higher than that of post-focal []


0

50

100

150

200

250


Duration(ms

)

Fig. 5. Mean segment durations for the target words pooled over 12 speakers for the CG (---) and PW (- - -) word structures separately.

Table 2

Effects of voicing of labial plosive, focus condition, sentence mode and word structure on the F1, F2 and F3 of [ ] and [e].

Segment Dependent variable Voicing df 1,11 Focus df 2,22 Sentence mode df 1,11 Word structure df 1,11

[] F1 ns F= 3.650* ns F= 7.078*

F2 ns F= 4.854* ns ns

F3 ns F= 4.277* ns ns

[e] F1 ns ns ns F= 10.917**

F2 F= 25.361** F= 3.802* ns ns

F3 F= 6.34* F= 4.077* ns ns

* p< 0.05.** p< 0.01.


10/16


(25 Hz) and the neutral [] (14 Hz). The F2 of [] is higher in the post-focal condition than in the neutral condition (34 Hz)and the focal condition (52 Hz), while its F3 is 60 Hz lower in the post-focal condition than in the neutral condition and46 Hz lower than in the focal condition. That is, [] is slightly more centralized in the post-focal condition than in the neutraland focal conditions. The F2 of [e] was 48 Hz lower in the post-focal condition than in the neutral condition, and F3 was46 Hz lower in the post-focal condition than in the neutral condition, which, again, means that in the post-focal condition [e]was marginally more central. Finally, the effects ofword typeare summarized by observing that when [t] has the pitchaccent (CG), it has a marginally higher F1 (18 Hz) than when it has not (PW). Conversely, accented [e] (PW) has amarginally higher F1 (19 Hz) than unaccented [e] (CG). That is, vowels in accented syllables are fractionally, andnegligibly, opener than in the unaccented case.

3.3. Intensity

We reportthe results forintensity (dB) of theseparateanalyses of variance forthe twotarget vowelsseparately in Table 3.


Table 3

Effects of voicing of labial plosive, focus condition, sentence mode and word structure on the intensity of [] and [e].

Voicing df 1,11 Focus df 2,22 Sentence mode df 1,11 Word structure df 1,11

[] ns F= 42.46** ns F= 5.89*

[e] F= 15.92** F= 42.47** F= 7.20* F= 5.04**

* p < 0.05.** p < 0.01.

[

50

150

250

350

50

150

250

350

50

150

250

350

50

150

250

350

50

150

250

350

50

150

250

350

F0 (Hz)

Fig. 6. Mean declarative F0 contours forunand [t[b/p]ee] on normalized time scale for PW ( ---) and CG (- - -) word structures separately, with

target words in a neutral focus sentence (top), in post-focal position (middle) and focus position (bottom). Pooled over 4 speakers.


11/16


The voiced labial plosive causes the intensity of the following [e] to be 1.47 dB higher compared to the voicelessconsonant. Ininterrogatives, it is 2 dB higher than in declaratives, a statistical trend. We have no interpretation of theseeffects. As forFocus, [] is 3.03 dB higher in the neutral condition than that in the post-focal condition, and 1.26 dB higherin the focal condition than in the neutral condition. Similarly, the intensity of [e] is 1.36 dB higher in the focal condition thanin the neutral condition and 3.98 dB higher in the neutral condition than in the post-focal condition. This result matches the

communicative nature of these conditions for both vowels, with more intense pronunciations in more emphatic

conditions. As for the effect ofword structure, we found that accented [] is 2.06 dB higher than unaccented [], andaccented [e] is 1.96 dB higher than unaccented [e]. Again, this result is in the expected direction for both vowels, but theeffects are statistically trends.

3.4. Fundamental frequency

We report mean f0 for the PW and CG target words in the neutral, post-focal and focal conditions with declarative andinterrogative intonation separately. Fig. 6 shows averaged contours on normalized time scales for the declarativecondition, whileFig. 4does the same for the interrogative condition.

In comparison to the duration, intensity and spectral measurements, the f0 measurements show substantial differencesbetween the two word types. In the top panels ofFigs. 6 and 7, which show the neutral condition in declaratives and

interrogatives respectively, accented [t] is approximately 50 Hz (declarative) and 70 Hz (interrogative) higher than itsunaccented counterpart. In the bottom panels, which give the focal condition, comparable differences are observed both for[t] and [be]. To turn to the post-focal condition, a comparison of the neutral contrasts (Fig. 6, top panels) with the post-focal(middle panels) contrasts between the PW and CG pronunciations suggests that post-focal forms are not deaccented. With


[

50

150

250

350

50

150

250

350

50

150

250

350

50

150

250

350

50

150

250

350

50

150

250

350

F0 (Hz)

Fig. 7. Mean interrogative F0 contours forunand [t[b/p]ee] on normalized time scale for PW (---) and CG (- - -) word structures separately, with

target words in a neutral focus sentence (top), in post-focal position (middle) and focus position (bottom). Pooled over 4 speakers.


12/16


neutral focus (top), the first syllable [t] of the CG (solid line) has high pitch and the following clitic has low pitch, and thispattern is reversed for the PW (dashed line). In the post-focal condition, there is evident Post Focus Compression, and thedifferences between the two word types are reduced considerably as a result, but there are indications that the generalpattern may be preserved. In the CG condition, there is a regular downtrend across the last four syllables, but in the PWcondition, there is not lowering from [t] to [be], which is consistent with an assumption that [be] has a range-compressed H-

tonetarget.The interrogative contours(Fig.7) confirm this conclusion. A comparison of thecontrasts in neutral and post-focalpositions shows that the post-focal pronunciation of the target words (middle panels) are reduced versions of the contrast inneutral position (top panels). A further indication that post-focal words are not deaccented is the relatively high f0 ofun in thefocal condition, where un is post-focal (bottom panels in Figs. 6 and 7). In the CG condition in particular (solid line), the thirdsyllable in the target words has lower pitch than the following syllable un, which suggests there is a H-tone on un in both thedeclarative and the interrogative. Since the declarative ends in L%, that H-tone must be H*.

A finalobservation concerns the utterance-final syllablesin the interrogative contours.All of these remain quite leveltill theend. This is different from what is seen in many other languages, where a final boundary H% causes a local rise in pitch.

4. Experiment I: discussion

Experiment I was run to be able to answer the question whether Persian has phonetic stress, in the sense of featuresother than f0 that mark prominent syllables, or alternatively only tone, to be described as a pitch accent. It was addressedby means of a detailed investigation of the phonetic differences between nouns and segmentally identical, butprosodically different noun+clitic combinations in a variety of conditions. The choice of these conditions was motivated bytwo considerations. The first was to spread the word accent contrast exemplified by the two structures across an array ofcontexts that might have an impact on the realization of the contrast. The second was to create a baseline for gauging theeffect size of any phonetic differences we might find between the two word structures, so as to be able to assign them tothe existence of stress, as opposed to regarding them as side effects of the existence of a pitch accent, i.e. of tone. Thereasoning here is that phonological contrasts rarely confine their effect on just a single or primary phonetic parameter, withtoneonlyhaving an effect on f0 or [voice] onlyhaving an effect on the state of the glottis. Side effects are ubiquitous, andare often conventionalized in the phonetic implementation (Stevens and Keyser, 1989).

The results showed that a number of structural contrasts are accompanied by differences in phonetic parameters thatare not the primary phonetic exponents of these structural contrasts. The largest of these occurred as a function ofsentence mode. Excessive final lengthening and some non-final shortening occurred in utterances with interrogative

intonation as compared with the same utterances with the (tonally different) declarative intonation (102 ms for the finalsyllable). Next in importance were the durational effects of the value for[voice] of the intervocalic plosive on its closure andburst durations, which are longer for [p] than for [b] (by 51 ms), and on the preceding and following vowels, which areshorter in the case of [p] (by 27 ms and 11 ms, respectively). While the specific finding that vowels are longer after onset[b] than they are after [p] is new, as far as we are aware, both the interrogative durational pattern and the durational effectsof the laryngeal specification of plosives are in line with many earlier findings (e.g. Rischel, 1974; Ryalls et al., 1994; Smith,2002; van Heuven and van Zanten, 2005; Stoel, 2007; Luce and Charles-Luce, 1985; Kluender et al., 1988 ). If we ignorethe effect of position in the sentence, an inevitable confound offocusin our data, the durational effects of focus is verysmall, with a 10 ms longer [t]-burst duration in post-focal pronunciation relative to neutral pronunciation. Similarly smalleffects are found for the structural difference at issue, that of the prosodic difference between first and second syllableaccentuationin nouns and noun+clitic combinations, respectively. Adding significant as well as near-significant effectsover the consonant and vowel in each syllable, we found a 15 ms longer duration of the first accented syllable and a 13 ms

longer duration of the second accented syllable than in their unaccented counterparts.The findings for intensity and the spectral measures lead to the same conclusion. The intensity of the vowels respondedmost clearly to the variation in focus, with vowels in post-focal words having lower intensity than under neutral focus andhaving less intensity under neutral focus than under focus. A similar effect was found for the difference in the position of theword prominence, but it wasstatistically less robust. The spectral differences between accented and unaccented versions ofthetwo vowelsare extremelysmall, and smaller than those that resulted from thedifferent focus conditions. In thecase of [e],we found a difference in F2 of the vowel after the labial plosive which is comparable in size to the difference in F1 we foundbetween the accented and unaccented versions of this vowel. In short, the durational and spectral differences betweenaccented and unaccented vowels stay well below the baseline for a phonological status of stress.

5. Experiment II

The results of Experiment I appeared to indicate that, while there is Post-Focus Compression in the declarative and

interrogative data, the tonal distinctions between the two word types remain intact after the focus. Experiment II wasconducted to see whether Post-Focus Compression merely compresses the pitch range or alternatively causes the



13/16


deletion of the tones of the pitch accent. Lack of deaccentuation under Post-Focus Compression predicts that the salienceof the contrast between the PW and CG conditions may well be reduced, because the distinctions between the high pitchof the prominent syllables and the low pitch of the non-prominent syllables is reduced, but that it is neverthelesscategorically present. We used a word identification task to test this prediction.

5.1. Experiment II: materials

Twelve utterances were selected from the recordings by each of four of the twelve speakers who contributed to thecorpus used for Experiment I, two randomly chosen female speakers and two randomly chosen male speakers. Theutterances contained equal numbers of nouns (PW) and noun+clitic (CG) versions of the same segmental strings. In orderto see if interruption of f0 might aggravate the difficulty of perceiving the post-focal contrast, half of the utterances had thetarget words with the voiceless plosives and half those with the voiced plosive. The focus condition was represented byincluding the three sentence frames representing the neutral, post-focal and focal conditions. This yielded 4 (speakers) 2 (plosives) 2 (word structures) 3 (focus conditions), or 48 stimuli. We only used the declarative sentences in thisexperiment, as there seemed to be a tendency to preserve the contrast better in the interrogative sentences (cf. the middlepanels inFigs. 6 and 7). Inclusion of interrogative sentences might have caused a positive bias in the results, somethingwe wanted to avoid.

5.2. Experiment II: procedure

Twenty subjects, 8 female and 12 male, were recruited from the student population of Tehran University. They weretested individually in the phonetics laboratory of the University of Tehran with the help of a Praat Multiple Forced Choiceexperiment run on a laptop (Boersma and Weenink, 1992--2009). They were instructed the listen to each stimulus and toselect one of four structures displayed on the screen, where the words [t b] light, [tb-e] swing+his/her, [tp](nonsense word) and [tp-e] tank-top+his/herappeared in Arabic spelling in four clickable buttons, in this order. Theorder of the stimuli was randomized per listener. Before the test proper, subjects did six practice items to familiarizethemselves with the task. They could listen to each stimulus as often as they wished, but once they made their choice, thenext screen appeared automatically.

5.3. Experiment II: results

Correct scores were pooled over the stimuli spoken by the different speakers, and an analysis of variance (repeatedmeasures) was performed on them with WORD STRUCTURE(CG vs. PW), VOICE([b], [p]) and FOCUS(neutral, post-focal, focal)and as factors. There was a main effect forFOCUS (F[2] = 54.125,p < 0.001). A post hoc test (Sidak) showed that the post-focal condition was significantly different from the neutral and focus conditions (p < 0.001). The lower recognition scoresin the post-focal condition are due to Post-Focus Compression, which as we have seen reduces the phonetic difference


[

Fig. 8. Correct scores in a word identification task for noun (PW) vs noun+clitic combinations (CG) as obtained in the neutral condition, the post-

focal condition and the focal condition.


14/16


between the F0 of accented and unaccented syllables. Inspection of the errors showed that there were no confusionsbetween the voiced and voiceless target words. Thus, while the chance level in this four-choice task is technically 25%, inpractice it is 50% for the difference between noun and noun+clitic combinations, given that there is no variation in thescores for the voicing distinction. The score of 73% is clearly considerably better than a chance level of 50% (see Fig. 8).

6. Conclusion

There were two questions we intended to address in our investigation. One concerned the presence of phoneticdifferences other than f0 in word prominent syllables and the other was whether Post-Focus Compression involved thedeletion of the tonal structure that is responsible for the word prominence. The results of Experiment I showed extremelysmall durational, intensity and spectral differences between prominent and non-prominent syllables. They were smaller orat least as small as those found between different focus conditions, between vowels before and after voiced and voicelesslabial plosives and between declarative and interrogative sentences. While the differences were in the direction to beexpected from a difference in phonetic stress, with slightly longer, slightly more intense and slightly opener mid vowels inthe prominent condition, theireffect size fell well below what would be expected from a difference is stress. By contrast, thef0 differences were substantial. The Persian word prosodic prominence contrast, therefore, is that between the presencevs. absence of a pitch accent. The literature on Persian (Sadat Tehrani, 2007) as well as our data suggest that this pitch

accent is (L)+H*, with the H-tone going to the last syllable of the lexical word domain, whereby L is overt in polysyllabicwords. Because clitics fall outside this domain, but are syllabified with it, minimal pairs that differ in the location of theprominent syllable arise whenever a clitic has the same segmental composition as the last segments of a word.Specifically, the cliticized words (also clitic groupor CG) have non-final prominence where the word (also phonologicalword or PW) has final prominence. Our experiment did not aim to elucidate the prosodic status of these constituents. Thedata we collected are consistent with an interpretation of all these structures as phonological words and with predictableprominence assignment taking place in the lexicon.

Experiment II confirmed an impression that could be gained from the production data in Experiment I. The phoneticdifference between CG [t[b/p]ee] and PW [t[b/p]e] we observed in the neutral focus condition appeared to bepreserved after the focus, where the pitch range was compressed. That is, a higher first syllable in the CG condition than inthe PW condition was observable in the post-focal condition, even if the F0 difference was less than in the otherconditions. A word identification task showed that the contrast, which reached a 96% correct score in the data withoutPost-Focus Compression, still reached a 73% correct score in the post-focal condition, where Post-Focus Compression

applies. This means that there was no neutralization between CG and PW, and that the prosodic difference between themis intact.

Persian thus differs from English in two respects. First, there is no comparable difference between stressed andunstressed syllables independently of the presence of the pitch accent, and second, unlike the pitch accents of English,the Persian pitch accent is not deleted after the focus. While Persian does have Post-Focus Compression (Xu et al.,2012), thereductionin pitch range is phonetic and leaves the tonal structure intact.These features make Persian more likeNorthern Bizkaian Basque (e.g. Hualde et al., 2007) and Tokyo Japanese (Pierrehumbert and Beckman, 1988;Kubozono, 1993) than English (e.g.Beckman, 1986), Dutch (Rietveld et al., 2004; van Heuven and de Jonge, 2010),Spanish (Ortega-Llebaria and Prieto, 2010) or Catalan (Ortega-Llebaria et al., 2010), where stressed and unstressedsyllables differ in duration and often also in vowel quality. However, unlike Japanese and Northern Bizkaian Basque,Persian has obligatory accent, making it similar to Nubi (Gussenhoven, 2006) and Turkish (Levi, 2005). A preliminaryconclusion therefore is that this kind of system, which is both culminative and obligatory and as such counts as a stress

system in the sense ofHyman (2006), may be more common than is suggested by their relatively sparseness in the

typological literature.We have not addressed all the relevant issues. One of these concerns the question whether there is only a single pitch

accent, (L+)H*, or more, as in English. Neither have we investigated the question whether deaccentuation of the word-based pitch accent might be systematic in other contexts. If the pitch accent is routinely deleted in other contexts thatwould evidently compromise its culminative status. Observe that there is no post-lexical process in English that affects thelocation or presence of stressed syllables (Gussenhoven, 2011), and thus all stress changing processes take place duringword derivation (satan--satanic,explain--explanation, etc.). That is, culminativity in English is absolute. It remains to beseen whether the same is true for Persian.4


4 Nima Sadat-Tehrani ran an informal small-scale replication of the perception experiment and found that responses in the post-focal condition

were

in the vicinity of chance level

. To the third author, who doesn

t speak Persian, the post-focal stimuli in Experiment II sound deaccented andneutralized. A formal replication of the experiment would be welcome. Instead of a reading task, as used in Experiment I and which yielded the

stimuli we used, a more realistic elicitation task would be desirable.


15/16


Our data are too limited to argue for any particular tonal analysis of Persian. However, some aspects of the data wouldseem to conflict with claims in the literature. Interrogatives end in level pitch, rather than a final rise. Since a sequence ofH* H%(or H* H-H%, asin Hirschberg and Pierrehumbert, 1986) has generally been used to describe upstepped contours,like the high rise of English (e.g.Gussenhoven, 2004:302) or the rise to high of French (Post, 2000), the Persian contourmay need to be analyzed with the absence of a boundary tone (cf. Grabe, 1998:49). This would mean that Persian

contrasts a declarative L% with the absence of a boundary tone () for interrogatives. H% might be reserved for non-finalIPs, as suggested by the examples inSadat Tehrani (2007).

Acknowledgements

Experiment I was conducted by the first author under the supervision of the second author. The data have beenreanalyzed and interpreted in collaboration with the third author. We thank the participants of Experiment I and ExperimentII at the University of Tehran and Joop Kerkhoff for technical assistance. We are grateful for the comments by HamedRahmani, Nima Sadat-Tehrani and three anonymous reviewers, which have helped greatly to improve the final text. Thefirst author acknowledges the ITRC Grant awarded by the Iranian Ministry of Information and Communication Technology,which enabled her to carry out research at Radboud University Nijmegen. The Ministry has in no way influenced thecontents of this report.

References

Beckman, M.E., 1986. Stress and Non-stress Accent. Foris, Dordrecht.

Bijankhan, M., Nourbakhsh, M., 2009. Voice onset time in Persian initial and intervocalic stop production. Journal of the International Phonetic

Association 39, 335--364.

Boersma, P., Weenink, D., 1992--2009. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer. Version 5.1.04. , www.praat.org.

Bolinger, D., 1958. A theory of pitch accent in English. Word 14, 109--149.

Chen, Y., Guion-Anderson, S., 2012. Prosodic realization of focus in Mandarin by advanced American learners of Chinese. Journal of the

Acoustical Society of America 131, 3200--3234.

De Jong, K., Zawaydeh, B.A., 1999. Stress, duration, and intonation in Arabic word-level prosody. Journal of Phonetics 27, 3--22.

Elordieta, G., Hualde, J.I., 2003. Tonal and durational correlates of accent in contexts of downstep in Lekeitio Basque. Journal of the International

Phonetic Association 33, 195--209.

Eslami, M., 2000. Senaxt-e nvay-e goftar-e zban-e farsi v karbord-e an dar bazsazi v bazs enas-ye rayani-ye goftar [The prosody of the

Persian language and its application in computer-aided speech recognition]. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tehran.

Eslami, M., Bijankhan, M., 2002. Nezam-e ahng-e zban-e Farsi: [Persian intonation system]. Iranian Journal of Linguistics 34, 36--61.

Ferguson, C., 1957. Word stress in Persian. Language 33, 123--135.

Fortescue, M., 1984. West Greenlandic. Croom Helm, London.

Goldsmith, J., 1975. Autosegmental phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.

Gomez-Imbert, E., Kisseberth, M., 2000. Barasana tone and accent. International Journal of American Linguistics 66, 419--463.

Grabe, E., 1998. Comparative intonational phonology: English and German. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen. Published in MPI

Series in Psycholinguistics.

Gussenhoven, C., 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Gussenhoven, C., 2006. The word prosody of Nubi: between stress and tone. Phonology 23, 193--223.

Gussenhoven, C., 2011. Sentential prominence in English. In: van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C.J., Hume, E., Rice, K. (Eds.), The Blackwell

Companion to Phonology, vol. 5. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA/Oxford, pp. 2780--2806.

Hayes, B., 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago University Press, Chicago.

Hill, A.A., 1962. First Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis. University of Texas, Austin.

Hirschberg, J., Pierrehumbert, J., 1986. Intonational structuring of discourse. In: Proceedings of the 24th Meeting of the Association for

Computational Linguistics. pp. 136--144.Hualde, J., Elordieta, G., Gaminde, I., Smiljanic, R., 2007. From pitch accent to stress accent in Basque. In: Gussenhoven, C., Warner, N. (Eds.),

Laboratory Phonology, vol. 7. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 547--584.

Hyman, L.M., 2006. Word-prosodic typology. Phonology 23, 225--257.

Hyman, L.M., 2009. How (not) to do phonological typology: the case of pitch-accent. Language Sciences 31, 213--238.

Kahnemuyipour, A., 2003. Syntactic categories and Persian stress. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 333--379.

Kluender, K.R., Diehl, R.L., Wright, B.A., 1988. Vowel-length differences before voiced and voiceless consonants: an auditory explanation.

Journal of Phonetics 16, 153--169.

Kubozono, H., 1993. The organization of Japanese prosody. Studies in Japanese Linguistics, vol. 2. Kurosio Publishers, Tokyo.

Lazard, G., 1957. Grammaire du Persan Contemporain. Klincksieck, Paris, New Edition published by Peeters, Paris, 2006.

Levi, S., 2005. Acoustic correlates of lexical accent in Turkish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35, 73--97.

Luce, P.A., Charles-Luce, J., 1985. Contextual effects on vowel duration, closure duration and the vowel consonant ratio in speech production.

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 78, 1949--1957.

Mahjani, B., 2003. An instrumental study of prosodic features and intonation in modern Farsi (Persian). MA Thesis, University of Edinburgh.

Ortega-Llebaria, M., Prieto, P., 2010. Acoustic correlates of stress in Central Catalan and Castilian Spanish. Language and Speech 54,73--97.



16/16


Ortega-Llebaria, M., Vanrell, M.M., Prieto, P., 2010. Catalan speakersperception of word stress in unaccented contexts. Journal of Acoustical

Society of America 127, 462--471.

Pierrehumbert, J., 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. Distributed 1988, Indiana University

Linguistics Club.

Pierrehumbert, J., Beckman, M.E., 1988. Japanese Tone Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Pierrehumbert, J., Hirschberg, J., 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in theinterpretation of discourse. In:Cohen, P., Morgan, J., Pollack,

M. (Eds.), Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 271--311.Post, B., 2000. Tonal and Phrasal Structures in French Intonation. LOT Publications, Utrecht.

Rietveld, T., Kerkhoff, J., Gussenhoven, C., 2004. Word prosodic structure and vowel duration in Dutch. Journal of Phonetics 32, 349--371.

Rischel, J., 1974. Topics in West Greenlandic Phonology. Akademisk, Copenhagen.

Ryalls, J., Le Dorze, G., Lever, N., Ouellet, L., Larfeuil, C., 1994. The effects of age and sex on speech intonation and duration for matched

statements and questions in French. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 95, 2274--2276.

Sadat Tehrani, N., 2007. The intonational grammar of Persian. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Manitoba.

Samei, H., 1996. Tekye-ye fe,l dr zban-e farsi: Yek bresi-ye mojdd.(Verb stress in Persian: a re-examination). Nameye Frhngestan

1, 6--21.

Schmerling, S., 1976. Aspects of English Sentence Stress. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Shaqaqi, V., 1993. Clitics in Persian. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tehran.

Smith, C., 2002. Prosodic finality and sentence type in French. Language and Speech 45, 141--178.

Stevens, K.N., Keyser, S.J.S.J., 1989. Primary features and their enhancement in consonants. Language 65, 81--106.

Stoel, Ruben, 2007. Question intonation in Fataluku. Presented at the Fifth East Nusantara Conference, Kupang, Indonesia.www.fataluku.com.

van Heuven, V.J.J.P., de Jonge, M., 2010. Spectral and temporal reduction as stress cues in Dutch. Phonetica 68, 120--132.van Heuven, V., van Zanten, E., 2005. Speech rate as a secondary prosodic characteristic of polarity questions in three languages. Speech

Communication 47, 87--99.

van Son, R.J.J.H., Pols, L.C.W., 1999. An acoustic description of consonant reduction. Speech Communication 28, 125.

Wellens, I., 2005. The Nubi Language of Uganda: An Arabic Creole in Africa. Brill, Leiden.

Xu, Y., Chen, S.-w., Wang, B., 2012. Prosodic focus with and without post-focus compression (PFC): a typological divide within the same

language family? The Linguistic Review 29, 131--147.


Documents

abolhasanizadeh