Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-l4t7p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T10:09:16.173Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The timing of pre-nuclear pitch accents in Persian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2017

Vahid Sadeghi*
Affiliation:
Department of English and Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities, Imam Khomeini International Universityvsadeghi@hum.ikiu.ac.ir
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the phonetic realization of rising pre-nuclear pitch accents in Persian. In a first experiment, the alignment of f0 valleys and peaks in pre-nuclear pitch accents was analyzed in controlled speech materials as a function of the syllable structure (open vs. closed) and vowel type (short vs. long) of the accented syllable. The results revealed that in words with antepenultimate stress, both the L and the H tones are anchored to specific segmental landmarks irrespective of syllable structure or vowel type. In particular, the L is consistently aligned with the onset of the accented syllable, and the H is placed with similar consistency in the vicinity of the first post-accentual vowel. In a second experiment, the variability in the timing and scaling of L valleys and H peaks was examined as a function of the proximity of the word boundary and of the following accent. The results revealed that while the alignment of the L was unaffected by changes in stress conditions, H peaks were significantly retracted as the syllable approached the end of the word. However, the proximity of the following accent did not produce a significant effect on H alignment. In addition, no significant differences were found on L and H scaling in different stress or tonal crowding conditions. Overall, the results contribute to a growing body of evidence that in the absence of upcoming prosodic pressure, the alignment of pitch targets is specified relative to segmental positions. A comparison between these findings and empirical findings from other languages reveals fine phonetic differences of segmental anchoring that are less likely to be interpreted in terms of distinct association-based phonological representations, and suggests that some aspects of segmental anchoring need to be explained in terms of continuous language-specific alignment rules.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© International Phonetic Association 2017 
Figure 0

Figure 1 Waveform (upper panel) and f0 contour (lower panel) of the utterance /moˈdiːr-emuːn naːˈmæ-muːn-oʔemzaː kærdfoˈræn/ ‘Our manager signed our letter quickly’ produced by a Persian speaker. Accentual phrases are demarcated by vertical dashed lines. Accented syllables are in boldface.

Figure 1

Figure 2 Waveform (upper panel) and f0 contour (lower panel) of the utterance /maɢæˈzamunokamel χordim/ ‘We fininshed our food’ produced by a speaker of Experiment 1. The two vertical dashed lines mark the beginning and end of the accented syllable /za/.

Figure 2

Figure 3 Normalized mean distance from accentual L to the onset of the accented syllable (normalized C0toL) as a function of syllable structure (open vs. closed) for individual speakers and for all speakers.

Figure 3

Figure 4 Normalized mean distance from accentual L to the onset of the accented syllable (normalized C0toL) as a function of vowel type (short vs. long) for individual speakers and for all speakers.

Figure 4

Figure 5 Mean normalized V0toH as a function of the duration of the accented syllable in the two syllable structures (left panel) and vowel types (right panel) for all speakers.

Figure 5

Figure 6 Normalized mean distance from the onset of the accented vowel to accentual H (normalized V0toH) as a function of syllable structure for individual speakers and for all speakers.

Figure 6

Figure 7 Normalized mean distance from the onset of the accented vowel to accentual H (normalized V0toH) as a function of vowel type for individual speakers and for all speakers.

Figure 7

Figure 8 Normalized mean distance from the onset of the first post-accentual vowel to accentual H (normalized V1toH) as a function of syllable structure for individual speakers and for all speakers.

Figure 8

Figure 9 Normalized mean distance from the onset of the first post-accentual vowel to accentual H (normalized V1toH) as a function of vowel type for individual speakers and for all speakers.

Figure 9

Table 1 ANOVA summaries of the effects of syllable structure and vowel type on two measures of accentual H location, namely normalized V0toH and normalized V1toH.

Figure 10

Figure 10 Mean accentual L (left panel) and H (right panel) values in ERB across different stress patterns (oxytones, paroxytones and proparoxytones) and tonal crowding conditions (one and two intervening unaccented syllables) for all speakers.

Figure 11

Figure 11 Mean values of normalized C0toL (left panel) and V0toH (right panel) across different stress patterns and tonal crowding conditions for all speakers. The dashed horizontal line in each figure represents the temporal position of the respective segmental landmark.

Figure 12

Figure 12 Normalized mean distance from the onset of the first post-accentual vowel to accentual H (normalized V1toH) in proparaxytones and paroxytones for each speaker and for all speakers. The dashed horizontal line indicates the beginning of the first post-accentual vowel.

Figure 13

Figure 13 Schematic representation of the alignment of L and H tones relative to a stressed syllable in Persian (based on Experiment 1), Northern and Southern German (based on Atterer & Ladd 2004), English (Ladd et al. 1999), Greek (Arvaniti et al. 1998) and Dutch (Schepman et al. 2006).