1 / 28

Pitch accent alignment in Egyptian Arabic more evidence for cross-linguistic variation

Pitch accent alignment in Egyptian Arabic more evidence for cross-linguistic variation. Sam Hellmuth SOAS samhellmuth@soas.ac.uk PaPI 2005, Barcelona 20 th June 2005. Egyptian Arabic pitch accent alignment. Aim:

abia
Download Presentation

Pitch accent alignment in Egyptian Arabic more evidence for cross-linguistic variation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Pitch accent alignment in Egyptian Arabicmore evidence for cross-linguistic variation Sam Hellmuth SOAS samhellmuth@soas.ac.uk PaPI 2005, Barcelona 20th June 2005

  2. Egyptian Arabic pitch accent alignment Aim: • to explore the surface phonetic alignment patterns of Egyptian Arabic pitch targets • in rising pre-nuclear (= non-final) pitch accents • in different syllable types • to establish their phonological representation • to contribute to the growing range of cross-linguistic alignment data • towards pitch-accent typology Egyptian Arabic (EA): • = Egyptian Arabic: the dialect of Arabic spoken in Cairo • and also by educated people throughout Egypt • all data reported here collected in Cairo

  3. autosegmental-metrical theory In AM theory, intonational contours are analysed as: • a sequence of pitch targets • H or L or bitonal combinations thereof • autosegmentally associated with prosodic structure • aka metrical structure: syllables, feet, words, phrases... Ladd 1996, P&B1988 inter alia ‘starred’ tone: associated with the stressed syllable of the main stress foot of the accented word Gussenhoven 2002

  4. pitch accent alignment • recent discussion: can phonological association (‘starredness’) be inferred from surface alignment of individual pitch targets? Ladd 2003, Prieto et al (in press) • effects of prosodic context on surface alignment • Prieto et al (1995) Mexican Spanish pre-nuclear rising accents • in open syllables eg número • L very stably aligned at left edge of stressed syllable but see Prieto (in press) • H alignment is affected systematically by: • proximity to a prosodic boundary • proximity to other pitch accents • results reproduced for Lebanese Arabic (LA) Chahal 2001 • patterns of surface alignment to segmental landmarks • eg Arvaniti et al (1998) Greek pre-nuclear rising accents • targets independently aligned to specific landmarks in the string • L aligned very stably at the left edge of the stressed syllable • onset of the initial consonant of the stressed syllable (C0) • H also aligned stably to segmental landmarks • ‘segmental anchoring’

  5. pitch accent alignment AL2004:187 two key studies for comparison here: • Atterer & Ladd 2004 • comparison of L/H target alignment • in two dialects of German • open syllables • Ladd, Mennen & Schepman 2000 • comparison of alignment in Dutch long vs short vowels • L alignment very stable (at C0) • H aligned: • within stressed vowel in CVV (long/tense) • into following consonant in CV (short/lax) • research questions: • how are pitch targets in EA non-final pitch accents aligned? • does alignment of EA pitch targets vary across syllable types?

  6. pitch accent alignment what is known about EA pitch accents? • highly populated pitch accent distribution • “Arabic seems to have a greater tendency to accent all words..” Mitchell 1993:230 • “lexical stress of every content word will be stressed in continuous speech if.. nothing to cause suppression of the stress” Heliel 1977:125 • cf Spanish, Greek (Jun 2004), NEP, Brazilian Portuguese (Vigario & Frota 2003) • non-final pitch accents are bitonal • “an ‘up-and-down’, ‘see-saw’ effect.. characterises the spoken language” .... “unaccented syllables in the same word.. remain on the same height.. whereas pitch dips markedly lower to pre-accentual syllables in the following word.. from which a ‘jump’ takes place to the height of the following accented syllable” .... Mitchell 1993 • “pre-final stressed syllables.. are depicted by a late peak situated on the last point of the syllable... [and] are all rising” Rifaat 1991

  7. methodology study modelled on Atterer & Ladd 2004 BUT: • three types of target syllable 1 CV light open short tense vowel 2 CVC heavy closed short lax vowel Shahin 1996 3 CVV heavy open long tense vowel • target syllables word-initial, target word non-initial in sentence • to clarify alignment facts in heavy vs light syllables • to facilitate comparison with the results of other studies (some CV, some CVC) • word-medial CVC closed syllables also tested: 4 CVC heavy closed short lax vowel • is alignment of pitch targets to word edge(s) or to the stressed syllable? • to facilitate comparison with the results of other studies (some word-initial, some word-medial)

  8. methodology • targets placed in frame sentences, as ‘natural’ as possible • 6 sentences per ‘set’ > 24 target sentences + distractors • read three times by 15 EA speakers • 6 female & 9 male • all at pre-intermediate level or lower in English • 24 x 15 x 3 = 1080 (270 per set) > 939 fluent tokens for analysis • digital recordings using ProTools 6.1 on MBox, headset microphone • 44.1KHz 16 bit, re-sampled to 22.5KHz • F0/spectrogram & measurements extracted using Praat 4.2 • in effort to achieve naturalness > clash context not fully controlled # intervening σ before # intervening σ after set 1 0 or 1 2-4 set 2 0 or 1 2-4 set 3 0 or 1 1-2 set 4 1 or 2 1-3

  9. methodology sample target sentences: • šufna malik il-?urdun lamma ruHna l-?urdun We saw the king of Jordan when we went to Jordan • ?akalna manga laziiza giddan min-is-suu? We ate a really delicious mango from the market. • ir-ruzzdamaaliH?awwi wiTa9muh waaHiš That rice is really salty and tastes horrible. • il-mudarris mimalmil min iT-Talaba The teacher is nervous of his students.

  10. methodology • pitch event variables: L1 H L2 • alignment variables: L1-C0 L1-V0 (L1-X) H-C1 (H-C2) H-V1 • peak delay: H-C0 syllable duration#1: treats C1 as end of syllable in set 1 (CV.CV) syllable duration#2: treats V1 as end of syllable in set 1 (CVC.V) > relative peak delay (RPD): peak delay/syllable duration (RPD1/RPD2) NB L2 observed during transcription always to fall within following word

  11. results L alignment variables H alignment variables relative peak delay

  12. results: L alignment L alignment variables, all speakers, by set: • L is aligned closer to C0 than to V0 • ie to the left edge of the syllable

  13. results: L alignment details of average speaker behaviour in L alignment across sets: • based on speaker means within each set: # who align L before C0 # who align L after C0 set 1 8 3F,5M 7 3F,4M set 2 3 3F,4M 14 6F,8M set 3 5 1F,4M 10 5F,5M set 4 3 1F,2M 12 5F, 7M • two speakers align L on average before C0 in 3 out of 4 sets • mrf/mun • most instances of early alignment are in set 1 • BUT no one speaker aligns before C0 consistently across sets • strong tendency to align L just after C0 (but not universal) • working hypothesis: in EA L is aligned “just after C0”

  14. L alignment • in EA L aligns to left edge of the syllable, most often just after C0 • however there is a considerable variation in the dataset • across a range of 200 ms for some speakers clash

  15. results: H alignment H alignment variables, all speakers, by set: • H is aligned after C1 • ie to the right edge of the syllable?

  16. results: H alignment rise duration (H-L) x syllable duration: • rise duration maps more closely to sylldur#2 than sylldur#1 • suggests that alignment of H best described in terms of syllable definition #2

  17. C V C V C V C C C V V C results: H alignment in terms of segmental landmarks, H alignment patterns differently in light vs heavy syllables • in CV (set 1) just before/after V1 • 8 speakers (1F/7M) align H before V1 • 7 speakers (5F/2M) align H after V1 • mean RPD1 > 1 (H aligned outside stressed syllable) • in CVC (set 2/4) between C1 & C2 • all speakers align H between C1 & C2 • mean RPD1 < 1 (H aligned well inside stressed syllable) • in CVV (set 3) just before/after C1 • 8 speakers (1F/7M) align H before C1 • 7 speakers (5F/2M) align H after C1 • RPD1: 8 speakers: <1; 7 speakers >1 clash

  18. results: H alignment distance from H to syllable end (#2): • H aligns later in open syllables (CVV & CV) than in closed syllables (CVC) • an effect of vowel quality? (tense/lax) • however there is considerable variation in the dataset...

  19. H alignment

  20. results: towards explanations Q: is H aligned a fixed distance from L? • as already seen, there is some correlation between rise duration & syllable duration (#2) • suggesting that as the duration of the syllable increases the position of H also moves • the correlation is weak but is significant • Kendall’s τ 0.262 • p < 0.01 • some support for ‘segmental anchoring’ in EA

  21. results: towards explanations Q: is there a fixed slope (rate of F0 change)? • F0 change (semitones) x rise duration • there is a correlation • unlike Greek (Arvaniti et al 1998) • suggesting that as the duration of the syllable increases the position of H also moves • again, the correlation is weak but is significant • Kendall’s τ 0.136 • p < 0.01 compare findings of Elzarki 1996 (EA pronunciation of Modern Standard Arabic)..

  22. results: towards explanations Q: how stable is H scaling? • mean H F0 (semitones) • ie are speakers aiming at a specific H pitch target level? • unable yet to normalise for individual speaker pitch range (work in progress) • but visually there does not seem to be an effect of syllable type on H scaling

  23. C V C V C V C C C V V C results: summary • L alignment • at left edge of stressed syllable • H alignment: • at right edge of stressed syllable • explanations: • fixed duration? • fixed slope? • segmental anchoring? • all three seem to be relevant • ? due to enlarged speaker set and resulting variation • in this context the consistent alignment of L and H to the syllable edges is all the more striking

  24. discussion: cross-linguistic variation in alignment comparison to other Arabic dialects: • Lebanese Arabic Chahal 2001 (4 speakers) • LA: L aligns before/after C0 (depending on word position) • EA: L aligns just after C0 (slight variation due to word position) • but in same direction (L aligned earlier in medial syllable than initial) • LA: H aligns outside the stressed syllable in CVC syllables • EA: H aligns inside the stressed syllable in CVC syllables In LA L aligns earlier than in EA, and H aligns later...

  25. discussion: cross-linguistic variation in alignment comparison to other Arabic dialects: • Moroccan Arabic Yeou 2004 (5 speakers) in MA: • L aligns “close to the onset of the syllable” • H aligns after C1 in CV syllables • “after the end of the stressed vowel” • H aligns after C1/before C2 in CVC syllables • within the stressed syllable (inferred from RPD value) In MA both L and H align similarly to their EA counterparts

  26. discussion: cross-linguistic variation in alignment comparison to other languages: • comparing data in short open syllables additional evidence in support of a continuum of cross-linguistic variation in phonetic alignment of phonologically parallel pitch accents is it appropriate however to make a direct comparison of EA with these languages? are these pitch accents phonologically parallel?

  27. discussion: phonological specification of EA pitch accents • unable at present to choose from among the three possible explanations • fixed duration vs. fixed slope vs. segmental anchoring • BUT: “association cannot be based on phonetic alignment in any straightforward way”.. Arvaniti et al (2000) (emphasis mine) • working hypothesis for EA pitch accents: • in the spirit of Prieto et al (in press) • bitonal pitch accent L+H • primary association of H to stressed syllable • perceptual salience of H cf Rifaat 2003 • no secondary association of H? • default alignment of L to onset of stressed syllable • problem?: association of strong element in pitch accent... • with weak element in foot • it is only meaningful to compare EA surface pitch accent alignment facts then with languages which also employ L+H* (defined under the same set of assumptions) • ?Catalan L+H* “rise with delayed peak” (Catalan targets were open syllables) • additional categories may also be needed: • should influence of fixed slope/duration be phonologically encoded? L+H* F σσ [ma lik]ω

  28. ألف شكرthank you! With thanks to • the Egyptian Arabic speakers who acted as consultants • audiences at the UCL Phonology Reading Group & Manchester Phonology Meeting for comments on earlier versions of this paper This work was funded by AHRB postgraduate award 01/59198.

More Related