Prosodic and Analogical Effects in Phonetic Realization in Turkish Noun-Noun Compounds
Öz
Previous studies on phonetic realization of compounds in Turkish have typically examined prosodic accounts of lexical stress; however, evidence for phonetic features is relatively sparse. This study investigates phonetic implementation of lexical stress in Turkish noun-noun compounds by measuring acoustic correlates of compounds vs. phrases and existing vs. novel compounds. In Experiment 1, noun-noun compounds and their phrasal contrasts (e.g., [da.ná.bur.nu] ‘mole cricket’ vs. [[da.ná][bur.nú]] ‘nose of a calf’), in Experiment 2, existing and novel compounds were acoustically measured by using existing vs. novel pairs (e.g., [da.ná.bur.nu] vs. [ke.dí.bur.nu]). Results for Experiment 1 showed a clear phonetic tendency that distinguished compounds from their phrasal counterparts. The model revealed significant main effects for intensity, duration, pitch values, and a strong interaction between position (left vs. right) and prosodic type (compound vs phrase). In Experiment 2, even though novel compounds are not lexicalized parts of a language, results from novel compounds revealed a similar stress assignment on the pitch, intensity, and duration of existing compounds. Significant interaction effects were observed for acoustic correlates between position (left vs. right) and compound type (existing vs. novel). Findings obtained from this research might contribute to revealing the basic phonetic aspects of the compound stress in Turkish, and results may lay the groundwork for future research.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Compound, phrase, existing, novel, phonetics, stress
Destekleyen Kurum
TÜBİTAK BİDEB-2219
Proje Numarası
TÜBİTAK BİDEB-2219
Teşekkür
This study was supported by the Tübitak-Bideb 2219 Post-doctoral research fellowship program. I am grateful to Bernd Möbius and Ivan Yuen for their guidance and directive suggestions for the earlier processes of this research at Saarland University Phonetics Group.
Kaynakça
- Aksan, Y., Aksan, M., Özel, S.A., Yılmazer, H., Bektaş, Y., Mersinli, Ü., Atasoy, G., & Demirhan, U.U. (2017). Turkish National Corpus (TNC). (Version 3.0.63).https://v3.tnc.org.tr
- Arnaud, P.J.L. & Renner, V. (2014). English and French [NN]N lexical units: A categorical, morphological, and semantic comparison. Word Structure, 7(1),1-28.10.3366/word.2014.0054
- Athanasopoulou, A., Vogel, I., & Dolatian, H. (2017). Acoustic properties of canonical and non-canonical stress in French, Turkish, Armenian, and Brazilian Portuguese. In Interspeech (pp.1398-1402).10.21437/Interspeech.2017-1514
- Baayen, R.H. (2008). Analysing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge University Press.
- Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48.10.18637/jss.v067.i01
- Beckman, M.E. (1986). Stress and non-stress accents. Foris Publications.
- Bell, M.J. & Plag, I. (2012). Informativeness is a determinant of compound stress in English. Journal of Linguistics, 48(3),485-520.10.1017/S0022226712000199
- Bell, M.J. & Plag, I. (2013). Informativity and analogy in English compound stress. Word Structure, 6(2),129-155.10.3366/WORD.2013.0042
- Berg, T. (2012). The cohesiveness of English and German compounds. The Mental Lexicon, 7(1),1-33.10.1075/ml.7.1.01ber
- Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (2022). Praat:doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.2.14, Retrieved 24 May 2022 from http://www.praat.org/
