Pitch accent alignment in Egyptian Arabicmore evidence for cross-linguistic variation

Sam Hellmuth SOASsamhellmuth@soas.ac.uk

PaPI 2005, Barcelona20th June 2005

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

autosegmental-metrical theoryIn 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...

Gussenhoven 2002

Ladd 1996, P&B1988 inter alia

‘starred’ tone: associated with the stressed syllable of the main stress foot of the accented word

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’

pitch accent alignment

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?

AL2004:187

pitch accent alignmentwhat 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

methodologystudy modelled on Atterer & Ladd 2004 BUT:• three types of target syllable

1 CV light open short tense vowel2 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)

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 2-4set 2 0 or 1 2-4set 3 0 or 1 1-2set 4 1 or 2 1-3

Error analysis Frequency

Valid disfluent 78

fluent 939

H phrase accent 42

L phrase accent 13

preceding phrase accent

8

Total 1080

methodology

sample target sentences:

• šufna malik il-?urdun lamma ruHna l-?urdunWe 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-ruzz da maaliH ?awwi wiTa9muh waaHiš That rice is really salty and tastes horrible.

• il-mudarris mimalmil min iT-Talaba The teacher is nervous of his students.

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

results

L alignment variables H alignment variables relative peak delay

Report

7.2130040303 -58.2395 628.3664 43.4505 -5.3129 1.3369 .9744

215 215 215 215 215 215 215

26.32698999 27.46485 175.06527 37.36155 36.03676 .26205 .18240

.9431435004 -59.5140 584.9197 44.5366 -1.7864 1.3611 .9894

16.23682462 -44.8495 658.1045 25.8998 -45.0429 -114.4879 .7895 .7895

249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249

29.32466354 31.68055 301.02599 29.07838 40.01888 46.66035 .17662 .17662

7.2104102649 -48.9990 605.3918 23.9491 -43.9744 -114.4021 .7742 .7742

10.40832087 -57.9137 557.2166 3.5714 -48.2291 1.0403 1.0403

245 245 244 245 245 245 245

33.61346130 34.28911 186.86404 46.53571 46.73823 .28189 .28189

2.4434110385 -60.7945 552.9166 -13.7227 -60.6610 .9282 .9282

5.8167213496 -58.9393 115.6099 20.9136 -48.7410 -111.2681 .7808 .7837

230 230 230 230 230 230 230 230

30.03691783 31.09688 70.63411 31.47868 41.04119 40.22659 .18171 .17152

4.2407925799 -56.5006 94.2672 17.1441 -49.5622 -111.6065 .7737 .7737

10.09760354 -54.7752 492.0233 22.8712 -46.8186 -71.4138 .9781 .8958

939 939 938 939 479 939 939 939

30.26705470 31.86077 297.89220 39.30651 40.51273 62.12170 .31961 .23799

3.7422844715 -55.8797 533.6717 20.0253 -46.1332 -79.2413 .8791 .8634

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Median

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Median

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Median

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Median

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Median

Set #Set 1

Set 2

Set 3

Set 4

Total

L1-C0 L1-V0 L1-X H-C1 H-C2 H-V1Relative Peak

Delay #1Relative Peak

Delay #2

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

results: L alignmentdetails 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 C0set 1 8 3F,5M 7 3F,4Mset 2 3 3F,4M 14 6F,8Mset 3 5 1F,4M 10 5F,5Mset 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”

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

626059556457676559705962636968N =

Speaker

muy

mun

mrf

moa

mns

mma

miz

mgk

meh

fsf

fna

fhx

fhm

fhg

faa

L1

-C0

200

100

0

-100

-200

Set 2Set 2Set 1Set 4

Set 3Set 3

Set 3Set 2Set 2Set 3Set 4

Set 3

Set 4Set 4Set 3Set 2Set 4Set 4Set 4

Set 4Set 4Set 4Set 3Set 3Set 4Set 4

Set 2Set 2Set 3

Set 3Set 4Set 3Set 3Set 4

Set 4

Set 4Set 4Set 4Set 3Set 3Set 4

Set 4

Set 4Set 4

Set 3

Set 2

Set 1Set 4Set 3Set 3

Set 4Set 2Set 2

Set 2

Set 4

Set 4Set 4

Set 4Set 4Set 3Set 4

Set 2Set 2

Set 2

Set 4

Set 2

Set 3

Set 3

Set 1

Set 4Set 3

Set 3

Set 1

Set 3

Set 3

Set 2Set 4

Set 1Set 1Set 2

Set 2Set 2

Set 4Set 1Set 3Set 4Set 1

Set 2Set 3Set 4Set 4Set 4Set 2Set 3

Set 4

Set 4

Set 4

Set 3

Set 2Set 1

clash

results: H alignment

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

Set #

4.54.03.53.02.52.01.51.0.5

H-C

1

300

200

100

0

-100

-200

Gender

Male

Female

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

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

C V C V

C V C C

C V V C

results: H alignmentdistance 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...

Set #

4.54.03.53.02.52.01.51.0.5

H t

o s

ylle

nd

#2

200

100

0

-100

-200

Gender

Male

Female

H alignment

626059556457676559705962636968N =

Speaker

muy

mun

mrf

moa

mns

mma

miz

mgk

meh

fsf

fna

fhx

fhm

fhg

faa

H t

o s

ylle

nd

#2

300

200

100

0

-100

-200

-300

Set 3

Set 3

Set 2Set 4

Set 3

Set 3

Set 4

Set 4Set 4Set 3

results: towards explanationsQ: 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

results: towards explanationsQ: 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 < 0.01F0 change (sem)

121086420

Ris

e D

ura

tion

500

400

300

200

100

0

Set #

Set 4

Set 3

Set 2

Set 1

Total Population

Rsq = 0.2266

compare findings of Elzarki 1996 (EA pronunciation of Modern Standard Arabic)..

results: towards explanationsQ: 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

Set #

Set 4Set 3Set 2Set 1

Me

an

HF

0S

30

20

10

0

fna

fsf

meh

mgk

miz

mma

mns

moa

mrf

mun

muy

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

C V C V

C V C C

C V V C

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 syllablesIn LA L aligns earlier than in EA, and H aligns later...

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

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?

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

σ σ [ma lik]ω

شكرألف thank 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 paperThis work was funded by AHRB postgraduate award 01/59198.