Intonation and utterance-types
Intonation patterns vary systematically between utterance types (Grabe & Post, 2002, Grabe, et al, 2003, 2008 & Grabe 2004). Differences in the intonational make-up of utterances may also be the result of intra- and inter-speaker... See more
Intonation patterns vary systematically between utterance types (Grabe & Post, 2002, Grabe, et al, 2003, 2008 & Grabe 2004). Differences in the intonational make-up of utterances may also be the result of intra- and inter-speaker variation (Peppe, et al, 2000 and Grabe & Post, 2002). Cross-utterance and cross-speaker variation of intonation patterns has largely been ignored in studies of Kurdish intonation. A few descriptive analyses of intonation patterns in specific utterance types have been carried out (e.g. Majid, 1987 & Mosa, 2009) but no comparative investigation of cross-utterance variation has been conducted to identify language specific intonational characteristics in Kurdish. Similarly, cross-speaker variation has not been considered. Previous work has focused solely on the analysis of individual speakers in a specific contexts (e.g. Hasan, 2005 & Mosa, 2009) without reference to the prosodic production of other speakers in similar situations.
The present paper is part of a larger study and investigates the intonational patterns across-speakers and across utterance types in a Kurdish variety spoken in Northern Kurmanji (NK), employing the autosegmental-metrical framework (Pierrehumbert, 1980). The study is based on a set of designed sentences of different syntactic types, namely statements, declarative questions, wh-questions, exclamations and imperatives. The experimental design of the sentences controlled for voiced/sonorant portions, word lengths and stress placement. The data were produced by 30 native speakers of NK, 15 male and 15 female. The recordings were carried out in the University of Duhok using PRAAT software and were made directly onto a Dell computer laptop using a Creative Headset HS-600 microphone. The data were analysed in two stages. Firstly, the data were phonetically and prosodically annotated in adaptation of the IViE (Grabe et al, 1998) including orthographic and phonetic transcription, demarcation of break index and prominent syllables, annotation of phonetic and phonological pitch targets. In the second stage, paradigmatic and syntagmatic comparisons were made within and across the different utterance types. The identification of specific prosodic cues allows for an investigation of phrasing, location of the primary prominence and the shape of the f0 contour, characteristics that have been shown to provide salient acoustic cues in the perception of speech (Grabe, Nolan & Farrer, 1998).
The results show that both utterance type and speaker have an effect on intonation in Kurdish. First, there is less cross utterance and cross-speaker variation in phrasing in comparison to the other two aspects of intonation because most of the utterances are produced as one intonational phrase. Second, there is a considerable variation in the location of the primary prominence which seems to largely depend on sentence type, i.e. in statements, primary prominence is placed on the preverbal element, either on the verb or the preverbal element in declarative questions, in the question word in the wh-questions, in the exclamation marker in the exclamations and in the first syllable of the verb in the imperatives. Thirdly, there is variation in the shape of the f0 contour within and across utterance types:
• More than one f0 pattern is realised for each utterance type, e.g. four for statements (rise-fall, rise-fall-level, falling & falling-level) two for declarative questions (rise-fall-rise & fall-rise), three for wh-questions (rise-fall, rise-fall-level, rise-fall-rise), two for exclamations (rise-fall & rise-fall-level) and four for imperatives (rise-fall, falling, rise-fall-level, falling-level).
• There is an overlap between some utterance types, for instance, the contour rise-fall-level is realised in four of the utterance types examined (statements, wh-questions, exclamations and imperatives).
• Some patterns are found more commonly in some utterance types but less in others, e.g. rise-fall-rise is more frequent in the declarative questions but less frequent in the wh-questions.
• Finally, some other patterns are restricted to one utterance type, for example, the fall-rise is only realised in declarative questions.
The findings not only provide a description of the NK intonational system in different sentence types, but also contributes to our knowledge of the organisation of intonational phonological systems. The understanding of regional variability in the systematic organisations of intonational patterns and other prosodic cues will allow for a deeper understanding of prosodic and intonational typology and phonology.