Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2021 / Syllable weight, vowel length and focus in Lebanese Arabic

Syllable weight, vowel length and focus in Lebanese Arabic

Summary

Kelly examines how vowel duration in Lebanese Arabic depends on phonological vowel length, the structure of the syllable and contrastive focus. The study tests mora-sharing accounts of Levantine syllables, which earlier rested on very small samples, especially for non-final syllables closed by a singleton consonant. The materials were disyllabic words whose stressed first syllable was open or closed and held a long or short vowel. Each word was recorded both outside focus and under contrastive focus. Word, syllable, rime and vowel durations were analysed with mixed-effects regressions that included speaker and item random effects.

Focus made words, stressed syllables and long vowels longer. Short vowels became shorter before a singleton coda but kept their length before a geminate. Long vowels kept their length before a singleton followed by another consonant. Kelly therefore proposes a mixed analysis:

  • A long vowel before a consonant cluster sits in an open syllable, and the first consonant forms a semisyllable (Kiparsky 2003).
  • A long vowel before a geminate shares a mora with the following consonant.
  • A short vowel before a singleton coda undergoes phonetic compensatory shortening.

The broader lesson is that geminates and consonant clusters should not be assumed to behave alike.

Key points

  • The design crosses four factors: open vs closed stressed initial syllable, long vs short vowel, focus condition, and coda type (singleton vs geminate).
  • Contrastive focus lengthened whole words, stressed syllables and phonologically long vowels.
  • Vowel duration was best modelled with a three-way interaction of VLength, Syl.Str and Condition in lmer, with random intercepts for speaker and vowel quality. Neither onset (p = 0.441) nor voicing (p = 0.126) improved this model.
  • Prior work frames the study:
    • Khattab & Al-Tamimi (2014) showed that only long vowels shorten before geminates in Lebanese Arabic.
    • The same study reported short-to-long vowel ratios of 1:2.1 before singletons and 1:1.91 before geminates.
  • The proposed analysis rests on one idea: trimoraic (superheavy) syllables are avoided at all costs. Two different repair strategies serve this goal, and short vowels never need either one.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Contexts that look the same on the surface, here clusters and geminates, may need different underlying mechanisms, so the evidence should decide whether to merge them.
  • I2. Predictors were added to a model one at a time and kept only when a nested-model test showed a real improvement.
  • I3. Random intercepts for speaker and item stop a few talkers or words from driving the conclusions.
  • I4. One overriding constraint, avoiding superheavy syllables, accounts for several surface patterns that look unrelated.
  • I5. A factorial design crosses the factors so that each effect and interaction can be measured separately.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (tree): In UD dialect conversion, check corpus behaviour before mapping two look-alike constructions onto one relation, rather than collapsing them by assumption.
  • I2 (learn): Admit a new parser feature or repair rule only if a paired, significance-tested comparison against the current model favours it, so the feature set stays small and justified.
  • I3 (learn): When scoring Mova, group results by source document or item template so that one strongly represented text cannot inflate the measured gains.
  • I4 (frames): Pragmatic rules could be organised around a few high-priority constraints, with each output traced back to the constraint it satisfies, which keeps explanations short.
  • I5 (answer): Build school-test and fable-QA probes that systematically cross features such as negation, tense and focus, so that failures can be pinned to a specific interaction.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

Fields: Linguistics & languages

Topics Semitic languages

 Institutions

Also on the byline: The University of Texas at El Paso.

Cite

Cite as Niamh Kelly. 2021. Syllable weight, vowel length and focus in Lebanese Arabic. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.16995/glossa.5727

@article{kelly2021syllable,
  title = {{Syllable weight, vowel length and focus in Lebanese Arabic}},
  author = {Niamh Kelly},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2021},
  doi = {10.16995/glossa.5727},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5727}
}

References

83 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Abdul-Karim, Kamal. 1980. Aspects of the Phonology of Lebanese Arabic. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. find
  2. Abu-Salim, Issam & Abdel-Jawad, Hassan. 1988. Syllable patterns in Levantine Arabic. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 18(2). 1–22. find
  3. Al-Tamimi, Feda Y. 2004. An experimental phonetic study of intervocalic singleton and geminate sonorants in Jordanian Arabic. Al-Arabiyya 37. 37–52. find
  4. Almalki, Hussain. 2020. The Production and Perception of Prosodic Prominence in Urban Najdi Arabic. Doctoral Dissertation, George Mason University, Virginia. find
  5. Aoun, Yosef. 1979. Is the syllable or the supersyllable a constituent? MIT Working Papers in Linguistic 1. 140–148. find
  6. Arnhold, Anja & Kyröläinen, Aki-Juhani. 2017. Modelling the Interplay of Multiple Cues in Prosodic Focus Marking. Laboratory Phonology 8(1). 1–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ labphon.78 ↗
  7. Arvaniti, Amalia. 2016. Analytical Decisions in Intonation Research and the Role of Representations: Lessons from Romani. Laboratory Phonology 7(1). 1–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.14 ↗
  8. Bamakhramah, Majdi A. 2009. Syllable Structure in Arabic Varieties with a Focus on Superheavy Syllables. Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University, Indiana, United States. find
  9. Bannert, Robert. 1979. The effect of sentence accent on quantity. In Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 253–259. Copenhagen. find
  10. Blevins, Juliette. 1993. A Tonal Analysis of Lithuanian Nominal Accent. Language 69. 237–273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/416534 ↗
  11. Botne, Robert & Davis, Stuart. 2000. Language games, segment imposition, and the syllable. Studies in Language 24(2). 319–344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.2.04bot ↗
  12. Broselow, Ellen. 1992. Parametric variation in Arabic dialect phonology. In Broselow, Ellen & Eid, Mushira & McCarthy, John J. (eds.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics IV, 7–45. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.85.04bro ↗
  13. Broselow, Ellen & Chen, Su-I & Huffman, Marie. 1997. Syllable weight: convergence of phonology and phonetics. Phonology 14(1). 47–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S095267579700331X ↗
  14. Broselow, Ellen & Huffman, Marie & Chen, Sui-I & Hsieh, Ruohmei. 1995. The timing structure of CVVC syllables. In Eid, Mushira (ed.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics VII, 119–138. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.130.11bro ↗
  15. Bruce, Gösta. 1977. Swedish word accents in sentence perspective. Travaux de L’Institut de Linguistique de Lund 12. find
  16. Bruce, Gösta. 1981. Tonal and temporal interplay. In Working Papers 21, 49–60. Dept. of Linguistics, Lund University. find
  17. Cambier-Langeveld, Tina & Turk, Alice E. 1999. A cross-linguistic study of accentual lengthening: Dutch vs. English. Journal of Phonetics 27. 255–280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1999.0096 ↗
  18. Campbell, Nick & Beckman, Mary E. 1997. Accent, stress and spectral tilt. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101(5). 3195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.419208 ↗
  19. Carlisle, Robert. 2001. Syllable structure universals and second language acquisition. International Journal of English Studies 1. 1–19. find
  20. Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Li, Charles N. (ed.), Subject and Topic, 27–55. New York: Academic Press. find
  21. Chahal, Dana. 2001. Modelling the Intonation of Lebanese Arabic Using the Autosegmental-Metrical Framework: A comparison with English. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Melbourne, Melbourne. find
  22. Chahal, Dana. 2003. Phonetic Cues to Prominence in Lebanese Arabic. In 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona. find
  23. Clements, George N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, 283–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511627736.017 ↗
  24. Clopper, Cynthia & Tonhauser, Judith. 2013. The prosody of focus in Paraguayan Guaraní. International Journal of American Linguistics 79(2). 219–251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/669629 ↗
  25. Cohn, Abigail. 2003. Phonological structure and phonetic duration: the role of the mora. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 15. 69–100. find
  26. Cooper, William E. & Eady, Stephen J. & Mueller, Pamela R. 1985. Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question-answer contexts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77(6). 2142–2156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.392372 ↗
  27. Davis, Stuart & Ragheb, Marwa. 2014. Geminate representation in Arabic. In Farwaneh, Samira & Ouali, Hamid (eds.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXIV–XXV, 3–19. Texas and Arizona, United States. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sal.1.04dav ↗
  28. de Jong, Kenneth & Zawaydeh, Bushra Adnan. 2002. Comparing stress, lexical focus, and segmental focus: patterns of variation in Arabic vowel duration. Journal of Phonetics 30. 53–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2001.0151 ↗
  29. Eefting, Wieke. 1991. The effect of “information value” and “accentuation” on the duration of Dutch words, syllables, and segments. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 89(1). 412–424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.400475 ↗
  30. Goldman, Jean-Philippe. 2011. EasyAlign: an automatic phonetic alignment tool under Praat. In Proceedings of InterSpeech. Firenze, Italy. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2011-815 ↗
  31. Goldman, Jean-Philippe & Schwab, Sandra. 2014. Easyalign Spanish: An (Semi-)Automatic Segmentation Tool Under Praat. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-107124 ↗
  32. Gordon, Matthew J. 2002. A phonetically driven account of syllable weight. Language 78(1). 51–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0020 ↗
  33. Gordon, Matthew J. 2005. A perceptually-driven account of onset-sensitive stress. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23(3). 595–653. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-8874-9 ↗
  34. Haddad, Ghassan F. 1984. Problems and Issues in the Phonology of Lebanese Arabic. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois. find
  35. Hall, Nancy. 2013. Acoustic differences between lexical and epenthetic vowels in Lebanese Arabic. Journal of Phonetics 41(2). 133–143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2012.12.001 ↗
  36. Hall, Nancy. 2017. Phonetic neutralization in Palestinian Arabic vowel shortening, with implications for lexical organization. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2(1). 48. 1–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.257 ↗ our card
  37. Ham, William. 1998. Phonetic and Phonological Aspects of Geminate Timing. Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University, Cornell, USA. find
  38. Hansen, Benjamin B. 2003. Production of Persian geminate stops: Effects of varying speaking rate. In Agwuele, Augustine & Warren, Willis & Park, Sang-Hoon (eds.), Texas Linguistics Society Conference, 86–95. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. find
  39. Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 253– 306. find
  40. Hellmuth, Sam. 2011. Acoustic cues to focus and givenness in Egyptian Arabic. In Majeed Hassan, Zeki & Heselwood, Barry (eds.), Instrumental Studies in Arabic Phonetics, 299–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.319.14hel ↗
  41. House, Arthur S. 1961. On vowel duration in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 33. 1174–1178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1908941 ↗
  42. House, Arthur S. & Fairbanks, Grant. 1953. The influence of consonant environment upon the secondary acoustical characteristics of vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 25. 105–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1906982 ↗
  43. Hubbard, Kathleen. 1993. Mapping phonological structure to phonetic timing: moras and duration in two Bantu languages. Berkeley Linguistics Society 19. 182–192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/ bls.v19i1.1514 ↗
  44. Hyman, Larry. 1985. A theory of phonological weight. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110854794 ↗
  45. Idemaru, Kaori & Guion, Susan. 2008. Acoustic covariants of length contrast in Japanese stops. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 38(2). 167–186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0025100308003459 ↗
  46. Jongman, Allard. 1998. Effects of vowel length and syllable structure on segment duration in Dutch. Phonetics 26(3). 207–222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1998.0075 ↗
  47. Katz, Jonah & Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language 87. 771–816. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/ lan.2011.0076 ↗
  48. Kelly, Niamh E. 2021. Phrase-final lengthening across segments in Lebanese Arabic. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 42(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0001385 ↗
  49. Kelly, Niamh E. & Smiljanić, Rajka. 2017. The Effect of Focus and Phrase Position on East Norwegian Lexical Tonal Accents. Phonetica 74(4). 193–230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000453270 ↗
  50. Kenstowicz, Michael. 1970. On the Notation of Vowel Length in Lithuanian. Papers in Linguistics 3(1). 73–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08351817009389141 ↗
  51. Khattab, Ghada. 2002. Sociolinguistic competence and the bilingual’s adoption of phonetic variants: Auditory and instrumental data from English-Arabic bilinguals. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. find
  52. Khattab, Ghada & Al-Tamimi, Jalal. 2014. Geminate timing in Lebanese Arabic: the relationship between phonetic timing and phonological structure. Laboratory Phonology 5(2). 231–269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2014-0009 ↗
  53. Kiparsky, Paul. 2003. Syllables and moras in Arabic. In Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.), The Syllable in Optimality Theory, 147–182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497926.007 ↗
  54. Kuznetsova, Alexandra & Brockhoff, Per B. & Christensen, Rune H. B. 2017. lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software 82(13). 1–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 ↗
  55. Lennes, Mietta. 2017. SpeCT – Speech Corpus Toolkit for Praat (v1.0.0). First release on GitHub. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.375923 ↗
  56. Lenth, Russell. 2019. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. URL: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans ↗
  57. Lowenstamm, Jean. 1996. CV as the only syllable type. In Durand, Jacques & Laks, Bernard (eds.), Current trends in Phonology: Models and Methods, 419–441. Manchester, Salford. find
  58. Maddieson, Ian. 1997. Phonetic Universals. In Laver, John & Hardcastle, William J. (eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences, 619–639. Oxford: Blackwell. find
  59. Mai, Anna. 2020. Phonetic effects of onset complexity on the English syllable. Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 11(1): 4. 1–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.148 ↗
  60. Makki, Elrabih Massoud. 1983. The Lebanese Dialect of Arabic: Southern region. Doctoral Dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. find
  61. McCarthy, John. 1979. On stress and syllabification. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 443–466. find
  62. McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan. 1986. Prosodic morphology. (Unpublished manuscript). University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Brandeis University. find
  63. Mitleb, Fares M. 1984. Voicing effect on vowel duration is not an absolute universal. Journal of Phonetics 12. 23–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30847-2 ↗
  64. Nasr, Raja T. 1959. The predictability of stress in Lebanese Arabic. Phonetica 4(2). 89–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000257994 ↗
  65. Nasr, Raja T. 1960. Phonemic length in Lebanese Arabic. Phonetica 5(3/4). 209–211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000258058 ↗
  66. Niebuhr, Oliver. 2012. At the edge of intonation - The interplay of utterance-final F0 movements and voiceless fricative sounds in German. Phonetica 69(1–2). 7–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000343171 ↗
  67. Obégi, Michel. 1971. The Phonemic System of a Lebanese Arabic Dialect. Master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. find
  68. Peterson, Gordon E. & Lehiste, Ilse. 1960. Duration of syllable nuclei in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 32. 693–703. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1908183 ↗
  69. Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. find
  70. Port, Robert & Dalby, Jonathan & O’Dell, Michael. 1987. Evidence for mora timing in Japanese. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 81. 1574–1585. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.394510 ↗
  71. R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: http://www.R-project.org, ISBN 3-900051-07-0. ↗
  72. Rooth, Mats E. 1985. Association with Focus. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. find
  73. Ryan, Kevin. 2014. Onsets contribute to syllable weight: Statistical evidence from stress and meter. Language 90(2). 309–341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0029 ↗
  74. Sakr, Georges. 2019. A Laboratory Phonology Investigation into the Vocalic Inventory of Lebanese. Master’s thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. find
  75. Scheer, Tobias. 2004. A lateral theory of phonology Vol. I. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110908336 ↗
  76. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1981. Epenthesis and degenerate syllables in Cairene Arabic. In Borer, Hagit & Aoun, Yosef (eds.), Theoret- ical issues in the grammar of Semitic languages, 111–140. Cambridge: MIT. find
  77. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. On the major class features and syllable theory. In Aronoff, Mark & Oehrle, Richard (eds.), Language Sound Structure, 107–136. Cambridge: MIT Press. find
  78. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2008. Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of “discourse-new”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55. 331–346. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.8 ↗
  79. Versteegh, Kees. 1997. The Arabic language. New York: Columbia University Press. find
  80. Watson, Janet C. E. 2002. The phonology and morphology of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. find
  81. Watson, Janet C. E. 2007. Syllabification patterns in Arabic dialects: long segments and mora sharing. Phonology 24. 335–356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675707001224 ↗
  82. Watson, Janet C. E. 2011. Word stress in Arabic. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 2990– 3019. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0124 ↗
  83. Xu, Yi & Xu, Ching X. 2005. Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics 33. 159–197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2004.11.001 ↗

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/kelly-2021-syllable-weight-vowel-length-focus/