İngilizce ve Fransızcada Vurgu ve Belirginlik Örüntülerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Genel Bakış

Öz

Sözcük vurgusu, telaffuzu, ritmi ve anlam ayrımını şekillendirdiği için sesbilimde önemli bir konudur. Bu çalışma, karşılaştırmalı çözümleme yaklaşımını İngilizcedeki sözcüksel vurgu ile Fransızcadaki öbek-sonu belirginlik örüntülerine uygulayarak iki dil arasındaki yapısal ve işlevsel farkların nitel bir karşılaştırmalı çözümlemesini sunmaktadır. Çalışma, İngilizcede vurgunun biçimbilim, sözcük türü ve iletişimsel amaçla nasıl etkileşime girdiğini; Fransızcada ise belirginliğin ağırlıklı olarak öbek-sonunda sınır işaretleyici bir işlev gördüğünü incelemektedir. Çalışmanın veri seti, yetkin başvuru dilbilgileri ve sesbilimsel betimlemelerden amaçlı örnekleme yoluyla derlenmiştir. Bu kapsamda, (i) vurgu düzeyleri ve belirginlik örüntülerini, (ii) ek temelli vurgu eğilimlerini ve (iii) İngilizcede ad–eylem karşıtlıkları ile en küçük çiftleri; Fransızcada ise öbek-sonu vurgu örüntülerini ve sözdizimsel öbekleme etkilerini temsil eden kanonik örnekler seçilmiştir. Çözümleme, Krzeszowski’nin (1990) üç aşamalı yöntemini (betimleme, yan yana getirme ve karşılaştırma) izleyerek vurgu alanı (sözcüksel ve öbek düzeyi), değişkenlik/öngörülebilirlik, biçimbilime duyarlılık ve daha geniş bürünsel sistem içindeki ritmik örgütlenme (vurguya dayalı ritim ve heceye dayalı ritim) gibi eşleştirilmiş boyutlar üzerinden iki sistemi sistematik biçimde ortaya koymaktadır. Bulgular, İngilizcede sözcüksel vurgunun dilbilgisel ayrım ve bilgi vurgulamada merkezi bir düzenleyici kaynak olarak işlediğini; Fransızcada ise belirginliğin esas olarak ritmik düzenliliğe ve öbek düzeyinde sınır işaretlemeye katkıda bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Bu farklar, özellikle ana dil temelli ritim aktarımını önlemede, ikinci dil telaffuzu öğretimi açısından doğrudan pedagojik sonuçlar taşımaktadır. Gelecek araştırmalar, bu karşılaştırmalı genellemeleri doğal konuşmaya dayalı derlem ve akustik çözümlemelerle sınayabilir; ayrıca öğrenenlerin üretim ve algılarını inceleyerek yeterlik düzeylerine göre hangi vurgu ve belirginlik örüntülerinin öğrenenler açısından en fazla güçlük yarattığını belirleyebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fransızca
• İngilizce
• Karşılaştırmalı çözümleme
• Vurgu
• belirginlik

A Contrastive Overview of Stress and Prominence Patterns in English and French

Öz

Word stress is a significant topic in phonology because it shapes pronunciation, rhythm, and meaning differentiation. This study applies a contrastive analysis approach to lexical stress in English and phrase-final prominence patterns in French, providing a qualitative comparative account of the structural and functional differences between the two languages. It examines how stress interacts with morphology, grammatical category, and communicative intent in English, and how prominence in French functions primarily as phrase-final prominence. Data were compiled through purposive sampling from authoritative grammar books and phonological descriptions, selecting canonical examples that represent (i) stress levels and prominence patterns, (ii) suffix-driven stress tendencies, and (iii) noun–verb alternations and minimal pairs in English, alongside phrase-final stress patterns and syntactic phrasing effects in French. The analysis follows Krzeszowski’s (1990) three-stage procedure (description, juxtaposition, and comparison), systematically mapping the two systems across matched dimensions such as stress domain (lexical and phrasal), variability/predictability, morphological sensitivity, and rhythmic organization within the broader prosodic system (stress-timed and syllable-timed). The findings indicate that lexical stress in English operates as a central organizing resource for grammatical distinction and information highlighting, whereas prominence in French contributes mainly to rhythmic regularity and boundary marking at the phrasal level. These differences have direct pedagogical implications for second-language pronunciation, particularly in preventing L1-based rhythm transfer. Future research could test these contrastive generalizations using corpus-based and acoustic analyses of spontaneous speech and examine learner production and perception to identify which stress and prominence patterns pose the greatest difficulty across proficiency levels.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• French
• English
• Contrastive analysis
• Stress
• prominence

Kaynakça

1. Abbas, A. M., & Ahmad, R. S. (2012). Contrastive analysis of stress in English and Kurdish. Alustath Journal for Human and Social Science, (202).
2. Arvaniti, A. (2012). The usefulness of metrics in the quantification of speech rhythm. Journal of Phonetics, 40(3), 351–373.
3. Baek, H. (2024). Acoustics of the alignment of narrow focus prosody and lexical stress in native and nonnative English productions. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 156(4), 2340–2350. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0029737
4. Betti, M. J., & Ulaiwi, W. A. (2018). Stress in English and Arabic: A contrastive study. English Language and Literature Studies, 8(1), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.5539/ells.v8n1p83
5. Brasart, C. (2021). L’essentiel de la grammaire anglaise (2nd ed.). Armand Colin.
6. Coulange, S., Kato, T., Rossato, S., & Masperi, M. (2024). Exploring impact of pausing and lexical stress patterns on L2 English comprehensibility in real time. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2024 (pp. 1030–1034).
7. Cruttenden, A. (1997). Intonation (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
8. Crystal, D. (1997). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (4th ed.). Blackwell.

9. Curry, N. (2021). Academic writing and reader engagement: Contrasting questions in English, French and Spanish corpora. Routledge.
10. Curry, N., & Chambers, A. (2017). Questions in English and French research articles in linguistics: A corpus-based contrastive analysis. Corpus Pragmatics, 1, 327–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41636-017-0009-z
11. De Wit, A., Patard, A., & Brisard, F. (2013). A contrastive analysis of the present progressive in French and English. Studies in Language, 37(4), 846–879. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.4.04dew
12. Fetzer, A., & Johansson, M. (2010). Cognitive verbs in context: A contrastive analysis of English and French argumentative discourse. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(2), 240–266. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.2.05fet
13. Filipović, R. (1975). Contrastive analysis of English and Serbo-Croatian. University of Zagreb.
14. Frost, D. (2011). Stress and cues to relative prominence in English and French: A perceptual study. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 41(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100310000253
15. Gabilan, G. (2016). Grammaire expliquée de l’anglais. Editions du Séminaire.
16. Ghosh, M., & Levis, J. M. (2021). Vowel quality and direction of stress shift in a predictive model explaining the varying impact of misplaced word stress. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 628780. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.628780
17. Gilquin, G. (2015). Contrastive collostructional analysis: Causative constructions in English and French. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 63(3), 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2015-0025
18. Gordon, M. (2011). Stress: Phonotactic and phonetic evidence. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology (pp. 924–948). Wiley-Blackwell.
19. Grammont, M. (1966). Traité pratique de prononciation française. Delagrave.
20. Hallé, P. A., Best, C. T., & Levitt, A. (1999). Phonetic vs. phonological influences on French listeners’ perception of American English approximants. Journal of Phonetics, 27(3), 281–306. https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1999.0097
21. Hafissatou, K. A. N. E. (2021). A contrastive study of reflexive verbs in English and French. Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 3(4), 25–31.
22. Henderson, A., & Skarnitzl, R. (2022). “A better me”: Using acoustically modified learner voices as models. Language Learning & Technology, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.10125/73462
23. Hirst, D. (2000). ProZed: A multilingual prosody editor for speech synthesis. In IEE Seminar on State of the Art in Speech Synthesis (pp. 4/1–4/6). IEE.
24. Ivanova, M., Neubert, C. R., Schmied, J., & Bendixen, A. (2023). ERP evidence for Slavic and German word stress cue sensitivity in English. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1193822. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1193822
25. James, C. (1980). Contrastive analysis. Longman.
26. Jespersen, O. (1904). Lehrbuch der Phonetik. B. G. Teubner.
27. Khalifa, M. F. (2017). A contrastive metrical analysis of main word stress in English and Cairene colloquial Arabic. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
28. Krenca, K., Segers, E., Verhoeven, L., Steele, J., Shakory, S., & Chen, X. (2023). Lexical restructuring and phonological awareness in English–French bilingual children. Journal of Child Language, 50(3), 685–709. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000922000547
29. Krzeszowski, T. P. (1990). Contrasting languages: The scope of contrastive linguistics (Vol. 51). Walter de Gruyter.
30. Lambrecht, K. (2010). Constraints on subject-focus mapping in French and English. In C. Féry & M. Zimmermann (Eds.), Information structure: Theoretical, typological, and experimental perspectives (pp. 77–100). Oxford University Press. (Not: Kitap adı bazı kaynaklarda farklı geçebilir; editör ve başlık doğrulanabilir.)
31. Lee, G., & Shin, D. J. (2024). Vowel epenthesis and stress-focus interaction in L2 speech perception. Phonetics and Speech Sciences, 16(2), 11–17.
32. Ling, L. E., & Grabe, E. (1999). A contrastive study of prosody and lexical stress placement in Singapore English and British English. Language and Speech, 42(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309990420010201
33. Masson-Trottier, M., Marcotte, K., Rochon, E., Leonard, C., & Ansaldo, A. I. (2024). Effectiveness of French phonological components analysis in individuals with chronic aphasia. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.13080
34. Roach, P. (1991). English phonetics and phonology: A practical course (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
35. Rogerson-Revell, P. M. (2021). Computer-assisted pronunciation training (CAPT): Current issues and future directions. RELC Journal, 52(1), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220976590
36. Schwab, S., & Dellwo, V. (2022). Explicit versus non-explicit prosodic training in L2 stress learning. Journal of Second Language Studies, 5(2), 266–306. https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.21006.sch
37. Selkirk, E. O. (1980). The phrase phonology of English and French. Routledge.
38. Stetson, R. H. (1951). Motor phonetics. North-Holland.
39. Swan, M. (2005). Practical English usage (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
40. Underhill, A. (1994). Sound foundations: Learning and teaching pronunciation. Heinemann.
41. Van Roey, J. (1990). French-English contrastive lexicology. Peeters.
42. Vander Klok, J., Goad, H., & Wagner, M. (2018). Prosodic focus in English and French. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.172
43. Vaissière, J. (2002). Cross-linguistic prosodic transcription: French vs. English. In Speech Prosody 2002 (pp. 53–56).
44. Zufferey, S., & Cartoni, B. (2012). English and French causal connectives in contrast. Languages in Contrast, 12(2), 232–250. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.12.2.06zuf