Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:14:19.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nature and use of Icelandic prenuclear and nuclear pitch accents: Evidence from F0 alignment and syllable/segment duration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2010

Nicole Dehé
Nicole Dehé*
Affiliation:
Institut für Englische Philologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Habelschwerdter Allee 45, 14195 Berlin, Germany. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Two production studies and one perception study were designed to systematically test F0 alignment and segment duration in Icelandic pitch accents with a view to investigating previous claims about the inventory of distinct intonational categories. Four different conditions were tested: (i) prenuclear pitch accents, (ii) nuclear accents in sentence-final position in sentences with either broad focus or (iii) with final narrow focus, and (iv) nuclear narrow focus accents in non-final position. The alignment results are such that (i) prenuclear accents are signalled by a late rise (L*H), while final nuclear accents are signalled by an early rise; (ii) F0 peaks in prefinal nuclear accents are aligned earlier than in prenuclear accents, but later than in final nuclear accents, suggesting a prosodic boundary effect. The duration measurements suggest a positional, but no focus, effect on the duration of the accented syllable and its vowel, such that syllables/vowels earlier in the sentence are longer than later ones.

Keywords

F0 alignmentfocusIcelandicintonationnuclear accentprenuclear accent
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , May 2010 , pp. 31 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2010

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

REFERENCES

Árnason, Kristján. 1980. Quantity in Historical Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Árnason, Kristján. 1985. Icelandic word stress and metrical phonology. Studia Linguistica 39 (2), 93–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Árnason, Kristján. 1986. The segmental and suprasegmental status of preaspiration in Modern Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 9 (1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Árnason, Kristján. 1987. The stress of prefixes and suffixes in Icelandic. In Gregersen, Kirsten & Basbøll, Hans (eds.), Nordic Prosody IV: Papers from a Symposium, 137–146. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Árnason, Kristján. 1998a. Toward an analysis of Icelandic intonation. In Werner, Stefan (ed.), Nordic Prosody: 7th Conference, Joensuu 1996, 49–62. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Árnason, Kristján. 1998b. Vowel shortness in Icelandic. In Kehrein, Wolfgang & Wiese, Richard (eds.), Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages [Linguistische Arbeiten 386], 3–25. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Árnason, Kristján. 2005. The standard languages and their systems in the 20th century I: Icelandic. In Bandle, Oskar (eds.), The Nordic Languages: An International Handbook of the History of the North Germanic Languages, vol. 2, 1560–1573. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia & Baltazani, Mary. 2005. Intonational analysis and prosodic annotation of Greek spoken corpora. In Sun-Ah, Jun (ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, 84–117. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, Ladd, D. Robert & Mennen, Ineke. 1998. Stability of tonal alignment: The case of Greek prenuclear accents. Journal of Phonetics 26 (1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, Ladd, D. Robert & Mennen, Ineke. 2000. What is a starred tone? Evidence from Greek. In Broe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology V: Acquisition and the Lexicon, 119–131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia, Ladd, D. Robert & Mennen, Ineke. 2006. Tonal association and tonal alignment: Evidence from Greek polar questions and contrastive statements. Language and Speech 49 (4), 421–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atterer, Michaela & Ladd, D. Robert. 2004. On the phonetics and phonology of ‘segmental anchoring’ of F0: Evidence from German. Journal of Phonetics 32 (2), 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Elam, Gayle A.. 1997. Guidelines for ToBI labelling; version 3.0. http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~tobi/ame_tobi/ (7 January 2010).Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 2001. Praat: A system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International 5 (9/10), 341–347.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2008. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. http://www.praat.org/ (7 January 2010).Google Scholar
Cooper, William E., Eady, Stephen J. & Mueller, Pamela R.. 1985. Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question–answer contexts. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77 (6), 2142–2156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehé, Nicole. 2006. Some notes on the focus–prosody relation and phrasing in Icelandic. In Bruce, Gösta & Horne, Merle (eds.), Nordic Prosody: 9th Conference, Lund 2004, 47–56. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2009. An intonational grammar for Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 32 (1), 5–34.Google Scholar
D'Imperio, Mariapaola. 2000. The Role of Perception in Defining Tonal Targets and their Alignment. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Einarsson, Stefán. 1973. Icelandic: Grammar, Texts, Glossary, 2nd edn.Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Kügler, Frank. 2008. Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. Journal of Phonetics 36 (4), 680–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frota, Sónia. 2002. Tonal association and target alignment in European Portuguese nuclear falls. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Warner, Natasha (eds.), 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. Speech Prosody 2002, Aix-en-Provence, France, 11–13 April 2002. http://www.isca-speech.org/archive (7 January 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabe, Esther, Post, Brechtje, Nolan, Francis & Farrar, Kimberey. 2000. Pitch accent realization in four varieties of British English. Journal of Phonetics 28 (2), 161–185.Google Scholar
Grønnum Thorsen, Nina. 1988. Intonation on Bornholm – between Danish and Swedish. AIRPUC 22, 25–138. http://www.cphling.dk/~ng/papers/aripuc22_1988_25–138.pdf (9 February 2010).Google Scholar
Grønnum [Thorsen], Nina. 1990. Prosodic features in regional Danish – with a view to Swedish and German. In Wiik, Kalevi & Raimo, Ilkka (eds.), Nordic Prosody V, 131–144. Turku: Turun yliopisto.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1958. The phonemics of Modern Icelandic. Language 34 (1), 55–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellmuth, Samantha J. 2006. Intonational Pitch Accent Distribution in Egyptian Arabic. Ph.D. dissertation, SOAS, University of London.Google Scholar
Klatt, Dennis H. 1976. Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: Acoustic and perceptual evidence. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 59 (5), 1208–1221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational Phonology, 2nd edn.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 rate. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106 (3), 1543–1554.Google 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 (5), 2685–2696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladd, D. Robert & Schepman, Astrid. 2003. ‘Sagging transitions’ between high pitch accents in English: Experimental evidence. Journal of Phonetics 31 (1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, Francis & Jónsdóttir, Hildur. 2001. Accentuation patterns in Icelandic. In van Dommelen, Wim A. & Fretheim, Thorstein (eds.), Nordic Prosody: 8th Conference, Trondheim 2000, 187–198. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Pétursson, Magnús. 1978. Isländisch: Eine Übersicht über die moderne isländische Sprache mit einem kurzen Abriß der Geschichte und Literatur Islands. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1980. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Prieto, Pilar, van Santen, Jan & Hirschberg, Julia. 1995. Tonal alignment patterns in Spanish. Journal of Phonetics 23 (4), 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prieto, Pilar & Torreira, Francisco. 2007. The segmental anchoring hypothesis revisited: Syllable structure and speech rate effects on peak timing in Spanish. Journal of Phonetics 35 (4), 473–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schepman, Astrid, Lickley, Robin & Ladd, D. Robert. 2006. Effects of vowel length and ‘right context’ on the alignment of Dutch nuclear accents. Journal of Phonetics 34 (1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, Kim E. A. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B.. 1990. The timing of prenuclear high accents in English. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, 72–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1994. Icelandic. In König, Ekkehard & van der Auwera, Johan (eds.), The Germanic Languages, 142–189. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vaissière, Jacqueline. 1983. Language-independent prosodic features. In Cutler, Anne & Ladd, D. Robert (eds.), Prosody: Models and Measurements, 53–66. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, Anne, House, Jill & Rietveld, Toni. 2000. Discourse constraints on F0 peak timing in English. In Botinis, Antonis (ed.), Intonation, 163–182. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar