The acoustic properties associated with prominence (e.g. duration, F0) may also serve for “phonemic” contrasts. The question is thus how speakers correctly interpret these properties. We address this question in terms of an extension of the Functional Load Hypothesis (FLH): given that vowel length is contrastive in Hungarian, the FLH predicts that duration will not be the main cue to prominence (i.e. stress or focus). Based on a large, systematically collected corpus, we demonstrate that this is, in fact, the case; the main cue for both is pitch (F0), though its characteristics are different in the two cases. We also demonstrate that the vowel duration contrast is still present in the synchronic structure of Hungarian.
Adank, Patti, Roel Smits & Roeland van Hout. 2004. A comparison of vowel normalization procedures for language variation research. Journal of Acoustical Society of America. 116 (5). 3099–3107.
Berinstein, Ava E. 1979. A cross-linguistic study on the perception and production of stress. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics. 47. 1–59.
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2005. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. [URL].
Chávez-Peón, Mario. 2008. Phonetic cues to stress in a tonal language: Prosodic prominence in San Lucas Quiaviní Zapotec. In Susie Jones (ed.). Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistics Accociation. [URL].
Chávez-Peón, Mario. 2010. The interaction of metrical structure, tone, and phonation types in Quiaviní Zapotec. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia dissertation.
Genzel, Susanne, Shinichiro Ishihara & Balázs Surányi. To appear. The prosodic expression of focus, contrast and givenness: A production study of Hungarian. Lingua.
Kálmán, László & Ádám Nádasdy. 1994. [Cited in Blaho & Szeredi. 2011]. A hangsúly [Stress]. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.) Strukturális magyar nyelvtan: fonológia [A structural grammar of Hungarian: phonology]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 393–467.
Kerek, Andrew. 1971. Hungarian metric: some linguistic aspects of iambic verse. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Kornai, András & László Kálmán. 1988. Hungarian sentence intonation. In Harry van der Hulst & Norval Smith (eds.), Autosegmental Studies on Pitch Accent. 183–195. Dordrecht: Foris.
Lobanov, Boris M. 1971. Classification of Russian vowels spoken by different listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49. 606–608.
Mády, Katalin. 2010. Hungarian vowel quantity neutralisation as a potential social marker. Acta Linguistica Hungarica. 57(2-3). 67–188.
Mády, Katalin. 2012. Shortening of long high vowels in Hungarian: a perceptual loss? In Silvia Calamai, Chiara Celata & Luca Ciucci (eds.), Sociophonetics, at the crossroads of speech variation, processing and communication. Pisa, Italy: Edizioni della Normale. [URL].
Mády, Katalin & Felicitas Kleber. 2010. Variation of pitch accent patterns in Hungarian. Paper presented at the 5th Speech Prosody Conference. Chicago, USA.
Mády, Katalin & Uwe D. Reichel. 2007. Quantity distinction in the Hungarian vowel system – just theory or also reality?Proceedings of the 16th ICPhS
. 1053–1056. Saarbrücken, Germany. [URL].
Mády, Katalin, Lasse Bombien & Uwe D. Reichel. 2008. Is Hungarian losing the vowel quantity distinction? In Rudolph Sock, Susanne Fuchs & Yves Laprie (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th International Seminar on Speech Production. 449–452. France: INRIA. [URL].
Magdics, Klára. 1960. [Cited in Mády 2012]. A szóvégi magánhangzók rövidülése a köznyelvben [Shortening of word-final vowels in colloquial speech]. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 62. 301–324.
Potisuk, Siripong, Jackson Gandour & Mary Harper. 1996. Acoustic correlates of stress in Thai. Phonetica 53. 200‐220.
Remijsen, Bert. 2002. Lexically contrastive accent and lexical tone in Ma’ya. In Carlos Gussenhoven & Natasha Warner (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 7. 585–614. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Siptár, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy. 2000. The Phonology of Hungarian. Oxford: University Press.
Surányi, Balázs, Shinichiro Ishihara & Fabian Schubö. 2012. Syntax– prosody mapping, topic–comment structure and stress–focus correspondence in Hungarian. In Pilar Prieto & Gorka Elordieta (eds.) Prosody and Meaning. 35–71. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Szeredi, Dániel. 2008. Centralized vowels in Hungarian. In László Kálmán (ed.), Papers from the Mókus Conference. 51–62. Budapest: Tinta Publishing House.
Szinnyei, Josef. 1912. [Cited in Blaho & Szeredi. 2011]. Ungarische Sprachlehre [Hungarian Language Teaching]. Berlin: Göschen.
Varga, László. 2000. [Cited in Blaho & Szeredi. 2011]. A magyar mellékhangsúly fonológiai státusáról [On the phonological status of the Hungarian secondary stress]. Magyar Nyelvőr 124. 99–108.
Varga, László. 2002. Intonation and stress: evidence from Hungarian. Hempshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Vogel, Irene, Angeliki Athanasopoulou & Nadya Pincus. Forthcoming. Prominence, contrast and the functional load hypothesis: an acoustic investigation. In Rob Goedemans, Jeffrey Heinz & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), Accent and Stress. Cambridge: University Press.
Vogel, Irene & István Kenesei. 1987. The interface between phonology and other components of grammar: the case of Hungarian. Phonology Yearbook 4. 243–263.
White, Laurence & Katalin Mády. 2008. The long and the short and the final: phonological vowel length and prosodic timing in Hungarian. In Plinio A. Barbosa, Sandra Madureira & César Reis (eds.),
Proceedings of the 4th Speech Prosody Conference
. 363–366. Campinas, Brazil.
Winn, Matthew, Allison Blodgett, Jessica Bauman, Anita Bowles, Lykara Charters, Anton Rytting & Jessica Shamoo. 2008. A comparison of native speaker and American adult learner Vietnamese lexical tones. CASL Technical Report. [URL].
Cited by (7)
Cited by seven other publications
Kallio, Heini, Antti Suni & Juraj Šimko
2022. Fluency-related Temporal Features and Syllable Prominence as Prosodic Proficiency Predictors for Learners of English with Different Language Backgrounds. Language and Speech 65:3 ► pp. 571 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.