Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T19:56:53.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Phrase-final intonation adjustment in Lebanese Arabic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2021

Niamh E. Kelly*
Affiliation:
American University of Beirut nk114@aub.edu.lb
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Intonation languages such as English and German have been described as having, among others, ‘realizational’ differences with regard to their intonation (Ladd 1996). One such difference is whether phrase-final pitch contours that lack sufficient segmental material to be realized naturally are subjected to truncation or compression. The current investigation examines this question in Lebanese Arabic. Stimuli were created with decreasing segmental material (disyllabic phrase-final, monosyllabic phrase-final) for both statements and questions. The contours produced by 16 speakers consisted of rises (questions) and rise-falls (statements). Results indicate that reducing the segmental material induces compression in rises and truncation in rise-falls, supporting the claim that languages cannot simply be divided into compressing versus truncating languages, and that the shape of the intonational contour plays a role in accommodation strategies. Speaker variation is also discussed.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International Phonetic Association
Figure 0

Figure 1 Truncation and compression of an f0 rise. Solid line is full realization, dashed line is accommodated realization.

Figure 1

Table 1 Target words.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Example statement disyllabic token showing labels of segment boundaries and f0 maxima and minima.

Figure 3

Figure 3 Example question and statement contours showing measurements.

Figure 4

Figure 4 Example statement monosyllabic token.

Figure 5

Figure 5 Example question disyllabic token.

Figure 6

Figure 6 Example question monosyllabic token.

Figure 7

Table 2 Statistical results for f0 excursion. Model: lmer(f0exc ∼ Word Length*Contour + (1| Speaker)).

Figure 8

Figure 7 F0 excursion by contour (rises left, rise-falls right) and word length (disyllabic darker, monosyllabic lighter).

Figure 9

Figure 8 F0 maximum height (left panel) and minimum height (right panel) by contour (rises left, rise-falls right) and word length (disyllabic darker, monosyllabic lighter).

Figure 10

Table 3 Statistical results for f0 maximum height. Model: lmer(f0max ∼ Contour + (1| Speaker)).

Figure 11

Table 4 Statistical results for f0 minimum height. Model: lmer(f0min ∼ Word Length*Contour + (1| Speaker)).

Figure 12

Figure 9 F0 minimum timing by contour (rises bottom, rise-falls top) and word length (disyllabic darker, monosyllabic lighter).

Figure 13

Table 5 Statistical results for f0 minimum timing. Model: lmer(f0minTim ∼ Contour + (1|Speaker) + (1|Set)).

Figure 14

Table 6 Statistical results for f0 maximum timing. Model: lmer(f0maxTim ∼ Word Length*Contour + (1| Speaker) + (1|Set)).

Figure 15

Figure 10 F0 maximum (left panel) and minimum (right panel) timing by contour (rises left, rise-falls right) and word length (disyllabic darker, monosyllabic lighter).

Figure 16

Figure 11 Word duration by contour (rise-falls top, rises bottom) and word length (disyllabic darker, monosyllabic lighter).

Figure 17

Table 7 Statistical results for Word duration. Model: lmer(worddur ∼ Word Length + (1| Speaker)).

Figure 18

Figure 12 Rate of f0 change by pitch accent and word length (disyllabic darker, monosyllabic lighter).

Figure 19

Table 8 Statistical results for Rate of f0 change. Model: lmer(rate ∼ Word Length* Pitch Accent + (1| Speaker)).

Figure 20

Figure 13 Pitch tracks from one word set for female speakers, showing both word lengths in statements and questions.

Figure 21

Figure 14 Pitch tracks from one word set for male speakers, showing both word lengths in statements and questions.

Figure 22

Figure 15 F0 excursion for rises by speaker and word length (disyllabic darker, monosyllabic lighter).

Figure 23

Figure 16 F0 excursion for rise-falls by speaker and word length (disyllabic darker, monosyllabic lighter).

Figure 24

Figure 17 F0 minimum height for rises by speaker and word length (disyllabic darker, monosyllabic lighter).

Figure 25

Figure 18 F0 minimum height for rise-falls by speaker and word length (disyllabic darker, monosyllabic lighter).

Figure 26

Figure 19 F0 maximum height for disyllabic words by speaker and contour (rise-falls darker, rises lighter).

Figure 27

Figure 20 F0 maximum height for monosyllabic words by speaker and contour (rise-falls darker, rises lighter).

Figure 28

Figure 21 F0 maximum timing for rises by speaker and word length (disyllabic darker, monosyllabic lighter).

Figure 29

Figure 22 F0 maximum timing for rise-falls by speaker and word length (disyllabic darker, monosyllabic lighter).

Figure 30

Figure 23 F0 minimum timing for disyllabic words by speaker and contour (rise-falls darker, rises lighter).

Figure 31

Figure 24 F0 minimum timing for monosyllabic words by speaker and contour (rise-falls darker, rises lighter).

Figure 32

Figure 25 Word duration for rises by speaker and word length (disyllabic darker, monosyllabic lighter).

Figure 33

Figure 26 Word duration for rise-falls by speaker and word length (disyllabic darker, monosyllabic lighter).

Figure 34

Figure 27 Rate of f0 change for rises by speaker and word length (disyllabic darker, monosyllabic lighter).

Figure 35

Figure 28 Rate of f0 change for rise-falls by speaker and word length (disyllabic darker, monosyllabic lighter).