Pitch Accent Distribution and Focus Structure in Taifi Arabic: A Production Study

Prosodic encoding of focus in Taifi Arabic is not yet fully understood. A recent production study found significant acoustic differences between syntactically identical sentences with information focus, contrastive focus and without focus. This paper presents results from a production experiment investigating whether information and contrastive focus have prosodic effects on the pitch-accent distributions. Using question-answer paradigms, 16 native speakers of Taifi Arabic were asked to read three target sentences in different focus conditions. Results reveal that every content word is pitch-accented in utterances with and without focus. However, there are very few cases (23.12%) in which the post-focus words are deaccented. The largest percentage of deaccentuation was observed in the utterances with initial contrastive focus. The results show that focus structures in Taifi Arabic show both deaccentuation and post-focus compression. Therefore, the prosodic realization of focus in Taifi Arabic is different from their counterparts in other Arabic dialects such as Egyptian and Lebanese Arabic. These findings have an important implication for both the prosodic typology and focus typology.

Correction by Focus: Cleft Constructions and the Cross-Linguistic Variation in Phonological Form

A challenging issue of cross-linguistic variation is that the same syntactic construction may appear in different arrays of contexts depending on language. For instance, cleft constructions appear with contrastive focus in English, but in a larger array of contexts in French. A part of the cross-linguistic variation may be due to prosodic differences, since prosodic possibilities determine the array of focus structures that can be mapped onto one and the same syntactic configuration. In the present study, we compare languages with flexible nuclear-accent placement (English, German), with languages that do not use this prosodic strategy (French, Mandarin Chinese). In a speech production experiment, we examine the prosodic realization of contrastive focus and identify prosodic reflexes of focus in all languages. The presence of different phonetic reflexes of focus suggests that – anything else being equal – the same syntactic constructions should be possible in the same array of contexts. In an acceptability study with written questionnaires, we examined the felicity of cleft constructions in contexts licensing a focus within the cleft clause. This focus structure is orthogonal to the preferred focus structure of cleft constructions and can appear in cases of second-occurrence foci (in contexts of correction). The obtained judgments reveal a distinction between languages with flexible nuclear-accent placement (English, German) and languages with other types of reflexes of focus (French, Chinese): languages of the former type have an advantage in using cleft constructions with a focus within the cleft clause, which shows that the array of contexts of using clefts in English and German is not a proper subset of the array of contexts applying to the same constructions in French and Chinese. The obtained differences can be explained by the role of prosodic devices and corroborate the view that prosodic reflexes of focus have different semantic-pragmatic import: it is easier to establish a focus structure that is orthogonal to the syntax in a language with flexible nuclear-accent placement (English, German); this does not hold for prosodic correlates of focus that reinforce the articulation of prosodic constituents (French) or the articulation of lexical tones (Chinese).

Syllable weight, vowel length and focus in Lebanese Arabic

Research on a variety of languages has shown that vowel duration is influenced by phonological vowel length as well as syllable structure (e.g., Maddieson, 1997). Further, the phonological concept of a mora has been shown to relate to phonetic measurements of duration (Cohn, 2003; Hubbard, 1993; Port, Dalby, & O'Dell, 1987). In Levantine Arabic, non-final closed syllables that contain a long vowel have been described as partaking in mora-sharing (Broselow, Chen, & Huffman, 1997; Khattab & Al-Tamimi, 2014). The current investigation examines the effect of vowel length and syllable structure on vowel duration, as well as how this interacts with durational effects of prosodic focus. Disyllabic words with initial, stressed syllables that were either open or closed and contained either a long or a short vowel wereexamined when non-focused and in contrastive focus. Contrastive focus was associated with longer words and syllables but not vowels. Short vowels were shorter when in a syllable closed by a singleton but not by a geminate consonant, while long vowels were not shortened before coda singletons. An analysis is proposed whereby long vowels followed by an intervocalic consonant cluster are parsed as open syllables, with the first consonant forming a semisyllable (Kiparsky, 2003), while long vowels followed by geminate consonants partake in mora-sharing (Broselow, Huffman, Chen, & Hsieh, 1995). The results also indicate compensatory shortening for short vowels followed by a singleton coda.

Similarity of mirative and contrastive focus: three parameters for describing attention markers

This article addresses the heretofore unacknowledged similarity of mirative-like and contrastive-focus-like functions by describing data from Denjongke (Tibetic, sip), Bih (Chamic, Vietnam, ibh) and Nepali (Indo-Aryan, nep). The similarity between mirative-like and contrastive-focus-like functions in the aforementioned languages is captured by the notion of something being brought to the forefront of attention. Mirative-like semantics are shown to be epiphenomenal to attention-oriented phenomena, and the functional domain in which the morphemes operate is shown to be attention rather than knowledge structure. The morphemes in the study are described in terms of three parameters, which are put forward as potentially useful tools for describing similar morphemes in other languages: speaker versus addressee orientation, clausal versus phrasal scope, and anaphoric versus cataphoric use. The first two parameters form a fourfold table in which the heuristically named “mirative-like function” has clausal scope and is speaker-oriented (i.e. speaker signals that something has come to the forefront of their attention). “Contrastive-focus-like function”, on the other hand, has phrasal scope and is addressee-oriented (i.e. speaker intends to bring something to the forefront of the addressee’s attention). Cognitively, contrastive-focus-like function is shown to establish joint attention.

El foco, la estructura informativa y ser focalizador en el español cibaeño

In this manuscript, I examine information focus and contrastive focus in Cibaeño Dominican Spanish (CDS), in an attempt to test the predictions of Zubizarreta (1998) as well as claims of rigid word order (e.g. Cameron, 1993; Toribio, 2000). Analysis of the experimental results from 34 monolingual CDS speakers suggests that CDS does not behave according to Zubizarreta's proposal, nor does it have rigid word order. Additionally, the preference for in situ contrastive-corrective focus bears a potential for information-structure-related ambiguities. I suggest that the ser focalizador structure, which is exhaustive in CDS, is made available to resolve such cases of ambiguity. Novel ser focalizador data informs a revised syntactic analysis of the structure based on Toribio (1993).

LEXICAL CLONING WITH ADJECTIVES IN ENGLISH

The paper discusses the phenomenon of lexical cloning in English, formally referred to as ‘contrastive focus reduplication’. This phenomenon is most notable in conversational English, especially in informal register. In the literature, lexical cloning is defined as a modifier reduplication of a lexical expression. Namely, a lexeme is duplicated in such a manner that the clone serves as a modifier with a contrastive focus, whose function is to accentuate the unambiguous sense. As explained in Ghomeshi et al. (2004), a lexical clone specifies a true, real, default, salient, or prototypical denotation of the repeated item. However, it has been demonstrated that lexical clones are context dependent as they are not quite predictable or interpretable in isolation. Accordingly, the phenomenon is not purely lexicosemantic, but rather lexicopragmatic, since speakers employ it to reinforce meaning and prevent misinterpretation. The aspects and elements of lexical cloning with adjectives will be analyzed within a sample of utterances from conversational English, which includes instances such as I thought they were kinda purpley. Like purple purple, not white with a purpleish tint added. We will also investigate the pragmatic phenomena of lexical adjustment and motivated redundancy as a mechanism behind cloning.