Análisis dramatúrgico de los personajes funcionales de la saga

The acoustic results suggest three different patterns of prominence (Table 9), which can be analyzed as different stress profiles. High compositionality compounds show equal prominence on both syllable (2 2) and are thus analyzed as primary–primary word stress pattern. Light initial monomorphemic words bear the least prominence on the first syllable and the strongest one on the second syllable (0 2). It is thus an unstressed–primary stress pattern. Monomorphemic words with heavy initial and low compositionality compounds manifests in an intermediate prominence on the first syllable and the strongest prominence on their second syllable (1 2), which is secondary–primary stress pattern. The metrical structures of all word types are shown in Figure 4.

Table 9: The levels of prominence in all word types

(0=the least prominence, 1= intermediate prominence and 2=the most prominence).

Word types Syllable weight

/

Compositionality

Levels of prominence

1st _{syllable 2}nd _syllable

Monomorphemic word Light initial 0 2

Heavy initial 1 2

Compound Low compositionality 1 2

High compositionality 2 2

Phrase 2 2

In the Metrical and Prosodic Phonological frameworks (Hayes, 1995; Kager, 1995; Nespor, 2007; Nespor & Vogel, 1986), stress is the manifestation of rhythmic structure. The acoustically different stress patterns appear to reflect a different metrical structure between two types of compounds. The primary-primary stress pattern of high compositionality compounds indicates that the highest degree of metrical prominence is marked on both syllables (Figure 2). Assuming obligatoriness and culminativity, two generally accepted properties of word stress (Hyman, 2006, p. 239; 2009, p. 217; 2014, p. 60), it is possible that each member of high compositionality compounds forms separate prosodic words manifested with primary stress on both syllables. In contrast, both syllables of low compositionality compounds and heavy initial disyllabic morphemes belong to the same prosodic word. The highest degree of prominence is thus applied only to the rightmost syllable following the iambic law and manifested in a primary stress. The other syllable is marked with less prominence and realized as a secondary stress. The acoustic results further suggest differential prosodic structure between high compositionality compounds and disyllabic phrases. The first syllable of disyllabic phrase is significantly longer than their second syllable which is probably the effects of phrasal prominence. In

Papers from Chula-ISSSEAL – Maluleem

74

the prosodic phrase domain, the prosodic head appears to be on the initial syllable aligned with a syntactic head and manifested in the significantly longer duration of the first syllable.

Figure 2: Proposed metrical structure of all word types

(x .) prosodic phrase (. x) (. x) (x) (x) (x) (x) prosodic word (. x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) foot

(x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) syllable

Mono Mono/Low High Phrase

(light initial) (heavy initial)

The different compound stress patterns can be explained in terms of lexicalization. Following Brinton and Traugott’s “lexicalization as fusion” approach (Brinton & Traugott, 2005), lexicalization refers to a set of changes in which a complex construction becomes simpler, i.e. syntagm (i.e. syntactic phrase) > lexeme or compound/complex words > simplex word. The processes relate to parallel changes in several levels of grammar, including the decrease in compositionality, loss of syntactic variability, development of morphological fixedness, and phonetic erosion, typically in a less prominent syllable. Compounds are known with the universal tendency to go through lexicalization processes, most of the time resulting in a monomorphemic-like structure, e.g. gospel < OE god “good” + spell “tidings,” (Brinton & Traugott, 2005:50). High and low compositionality compounds represent the point near the beginning and the end of the lexicalization pathway in which high compositionality words have undergone only some degree of lexicalization and low compositionality reflects highly lexicalized construction, as schematized in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Lexicalization and compositionality (adapted from Brinton & Traugott, 2005)

In the first stage, as represented by high compositionality compounds, both elements form their own prosodic word. After going through lexicalization, the prosodic word boundary between each member seems to become less transparent or, in some extreme cases, erased so that the two constituents of low compositionality compounds come to belong to the same prosodic word. The explanation is supported by the similar stress pattern between low compositionality compounds and heavy initial monomorphemic words. It is likely that the morphological and prosodic structure of low compositionality compounds may have been lexicalized and thus reanalyzed as one disyllabic morpheme.

The acoustic characteristics reflect at least three distinct levels of stress in Thai; unstressed, secondary stress, and primary stress. The second syllable of disyllabic words is always primary stress, as predicted by iambic law, consistent with all previous studies (Bennett, 1994, 1995; Naksakul, 1981; Peyasantiwong, 1986). In contrast, the first syllable varies according to word type, syllable structure and compositionality. This study argues that the compound stress patterns significantly relate to the words’ compositionality. However, this paper is based only on very small number of speakers (n = 4). The results should be considered preliminary. For future works, types of compounds (i.e. coordinate/subordinate, exocentric/endocentric), may also have to be investigated together with compositionality and further studies that take intermediate stages of lexicalization into account are needed to fully understand compound stress in Thai.

6 Conclusion

This paper shows that there is a significant effect of compound compositionality on their stress patterns. The acoustic results also confirm the hypotheses that low compositionality compounds bear secondary- primary stress and that high compositionality compounds bear primary stress on both syllables. There is also similarity between low compositionality compounds and heavy initial monomorphemic word which might reflect a similar morphological structure between these two types. For disyllabic phrases, their word stress pattern is identical to high compositionality compounds. However, the phrasal stress seems to be on the first syllable which makes disyllabic phrases acoustically different from compounds with high compositionality.

References

Beckman, M. E. 1986. Stress and non-stress accent (Vol. 7). Walter de Gruyter. Bennett, J. 1994. Iambicity in Thai. Studies in the linguistic sciences 24(1/2):39-57.

Bennett, J. 1995. Metrical foot structure in Thai and Kayah Li: Optimality-theoretic studies in the prosody of two southeast Asian languages. (Ph.D.), University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign, Urbana, IL. Retrieved from Full text -- IDEALS http://hdl.handle.net/2142/22242 Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change: Cambridge University

Press.

Bybee, J.2014. Analytic and holistic processing in the development of constructions.Language in Interaction: Studies in honor of Eve V. Clark 12.

Dechapipatskul, M. 2014. Prosodic Constituents in Thai: Syntax-Prosody Mapping and Boundary Strength. (Doctor of Philosophy program in Linguistics), Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok. Elvira-Garcãa, W. 2014. Prosodic-data-extration v2.1. [Praat script].

Goldsmith, J. A. 1976. Autosegmental phonology (Vol. 159). Citeseer.

Gros, J., Pavesic, N., & Mihelic, F. 1997. Syllable and Segment Duration at Different Speaking Rates in the Slovenian Language. Paper presented at the Fifth European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology.

Hayes, B. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies: University of Chicago Press. Hyman, L. M. 2006. Word-prosodic typology. Phonology:225-257.

Hyman, L. M. 2009. How (not) to do phonological typology: the case of pitch-accent. Language Sciences 31(2):213-238.

Hyman, L. M. 2014. Do all languages have word accent. Word accent: Theoretical and typological issues:239.

Iangubol, A. 1982. An Analytical study of Compound Words in Thai. (Master of Arts), Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok.

Injan, A. 2015. Coordinate Compounds in Thai.

Kager, R. W. J. 1995. The metrical theory of word stress. Blackwell handbooks in linguistics 1:367- 402.

Kessinger, R. H., & Blumstein, S. E. 1998. Effects of speaking rate on voice-onset time and vowel production: Some implications for perception studies. Journal of Phonetics 26(2):117-128. L-Thongkum, T. 2011. Thai Sounds: An Acoustic Study. In (pp. 330). Bangkok: Chulalongkorn

University.

Lesure, C., & Clemens, L. 2015. Prosodic boundary marking in ch’ol: Acoustic indicators and their applications.

Liberman, M., & Prince, A. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic inquiry 8(2):249-336. Naksakul, K. 1981. Thai phonological systems. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.

Papers from Chula-ISSSEAL – Maluleem

76

Nespor, M., & Vogel, I. 1986. Prosodic phonology: Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications; Riverton, N.J.: Foris Publications.

Nitisaroj, R. 2004. Perception of stress in Thai. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116(4):2645-2645.

Ortega-Llebaria, M., & Prieto, P. 2011. Acoustic correlates of stress in Central Catalan and Castilian Spanish. Language and Speech, 0023830910388014.

Pelletier, F. J. 1994. The principle of semantic compositionality. Topoi 13(1):11-24.

Peyasantiwong, P. 1986. Stress in Thai. Paper presented at the Papers from a Conference on Thai Studies in Honor of William J. Gedney. Michigan Papers on South and Southeast Asia, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Potisuk, S., Gandour, J., & Harper, M. P. 1996. Acoustic correlates of stress in Thai. Phonetica 53(4):200- 220.

Samek-Lodovici, V. 2005. Prosody–syntax interaction in the expression of focus. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23(3):687-755.

Sluijter, A. M., & Van Heuven, V. J. 1996. Acoustic correlates of linguistic stress and accent in Dutch and American English. Paper presented at the Spoken Language, 1996. ICSLP 96. Proceedings., Fourth International Conference on.

Yakup, M., & Sereno, J. A. 2016. Acoustic correlates of lexical stress in Uyghur. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 46(01):61-77.