Abstract

Although languages with rhythmic stress have been extensively described and analyzed in the phonology literature, there has been little phonetic verification of the metrical structures suggested by these stress patterns. This paper presents results of a cross-linguistic study of the acoustic correlates of foot structure in several under-documented languages with morphologically complex words providing the necessary backdrop for the realization of rhythmic metrical structure. Various potential acoustic exponents of metrical structure are considered, including duration, F0, intensity, and formant frequencies. The targeted languages include Muskogean languages of the United States (Koasati, Muskogee, and Chickasaw), Circassian languages spoken primarily in Turkey and Russia (Kabardian and Adyghe), the Tukanoan language Kubeo of Brazil and Colombia, and the Arawak language Mojeno Trinitario of Bolivia. The languages differ in their foot templates (trochaic vs. iambic), the direction of their metrical parse (left-to-right vs. right-to-left), their degree of metrical rhythm, and whether they also possess lexical tone or not. Results suggest considerable diversity in the acoustic manifestations of metrical structure (including the possibility of lack of rhythmic feet even in long words) and in the relationship between the word-level metrical system and other prosodic features, including intonation and (in tonal languages) lexical tone.Although languages with rhythmic stress have been extensively described and analyzed in the phonology literature, there has been little phonetic verification of the metrical structures suggested by these stress patterns. This paper presents results of a cross-linguistic study of the acoustic correlates of foot structure in several under-documented languages with morphologically complex words providing the necessary backdrop for the realization of rhythmic metrical structure. Various potential acoustic exponents of metrical structure are considered, including duration, F0, intensity, and formant frequencies. The targeted languages include Muskogean languages of the United States (Koasati, Muskogee, and Chickasaw), Circassian languages spoken primarily in Turkey and Russia (Kabardian and Adyghe), the Tukanoan language Kubeo of Brazil and Colombia, and the Arawak language Mojeno Trinitario of Bolivia. The languages differ in their foot templates (trochaic vs. iambic), the direction of their metrical parse (l...

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call