Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Vol. 43:2 (2020) ► pp.191–225

Information structure and intonational accent in Burmese

| University of Münster
It tends to be assumed that tonal languages do not make use of intonational tones and accent location for the purpose of conveying information structural aspects of the utterance. This study of read-aloud stories in colloquial Burmese shows that this tonal language does resort to this sort of intonational means for information-structuring reasons. The prosody of Burmese exhibits identifiable intonational patterns, which function on the level of accentual phrases. An accentual phrase constitutes the basic prosodic unit, and it is there that we find the real interaction of information structure, intonation and tone. Accentual phrases are organised around a single accent, the location of which depends on information structural factors. Sentences can consist of a single accentual phrase or a few phrases, while the exact partition into such phrases is also motivated by information- and discourse-structuring considerations.
Keywords: Burmese, prosody, information structure, accent, topic, focus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Goals of the study, the corpus and the theoretical framework
  • 3.Burmese language: Phonology and typological profile
  • 4.Previous research on Burmese prosody
  • 5.Accentual phrase and locus of accent in Burmese
    • 5.1Accentual phrase
    • 5.2“Pure” verbal phrase and its intonation
    • 5.3Expanded verbal phrase and its prosody
    • 5.4De-accenting of the initial constituent
    • 5.5Conclusion
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1The proposed analysis vs. the overall corpus data
    • 6.2Cross-linguistic and theoretical perspective
  • Note
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 4 January 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.20009.oze
References (41)
References
Armstrong, Lilias E. & Pe Maung Tin. 1925. A Burmese phonetic reader: With English translations. London: University of London Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2017. Praat (version 6.0.28). Amsterdam: Phonetic Sciences, University of Amsterdam. [URL]
Bradley, David. 1982. Register in Burmese. In D. Bradley (ed.), Papers in South-East Asian Linguistics No.8: Tonation, 117–132. Canberra: Australia National University.Google Scholar
Brunelle, Marc, Kiều Phương Hạ & Martine Grice. 2012. Intonation in Northern Vietnamese. The Linguistic Review 29(1): 3–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burgdorf, Dan Cameron. 2020. Reduction in Burmese compounds. Journal of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society 13(1): 129–159.Google Scholar
Chen, Yiya & Carlos Gussenhoven. 2008. Emphasis and tonal implementation in Standard Chinese. Journal of Phonetics 36(4): 724–746. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cresti, Emanuela & Massimo Moneglia. 2010. Information Patterning Theory and the corpus-based description of spoken language: The compositionality issue in topic-comment pattern. In Massimo Moneglia & Alessandro Panunzi (eds.), Bootstrapping information from corpora in a cross-linguistic perspective, 13–46. Florence: Firenze University Print.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J. 2008. Focus and prominence in Chichewa, Chitumbuka and Durban Zulu. ZAS papers in linguistics 491: 47–65.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J. & Annie Rialland (eds.) 2017. Intonation in African tone languages. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elvira-García, Wendy. 2017. Create pictures with tiers v.4.4. Praat Script. [URL]
Féry, Caroline. 2010. Indian languages as intonational ‘phrase languages.’ In Imtiaz Hasnain & Shreesh Chaudhury (eds.), Problematizing language studies: Cultural, theoretical and applied perspectives – essays in honor of Rama Kant Agnihotri, 288–312. Delhi: Aakar Books.Google Scholar
Fox, Anthony, Kang-Kwong Luke & Owen Nancarrow. 2008. Aspects of intonation in Cantonese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 36(2): 333–367.Google Scholar
Green, Antony D. 2005. Word, foot and syllable structure in Burmese. In Justin Watkins (ed.), Studies in Burmese Linguistics, 1–26. [Pacific Linguistics 570]. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Gruber, James F. 2011. An articulatory, acoustic, and auditory study of Burmese tone. Washington: Georgetown University PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Ha, Kiều Phương. 2012. Prosody in Vietnamese: Intonational form and function of short utterances in conversation. [Pacific Linguistics A-PL 002]. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian national University.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. & Kemmonye C. Monaka. 2011. Tonal and non-tonal intonation in Shekgalagari. In Frota Sónia, Elordieta Gorka & Prieto Pilar (eds.), Prosodic categories: Production, perception and comprehension, 267–289. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1999. Informational autonomy. In Peter Bosch & Rob van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 56–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jenks, Peter. 2007. Burmese tone? Unpublished ms. Harvard University. [URL]
Kanerva, Jonni. 1990. Focus and phrasing in Chichewa phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Kratovchil, Paul. 1998. Intonation in Beijing Chinese. In Daniel Hirst & Albert Di Cristo (eds.), Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages, 417–431. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kügler, Frank & Susanne Genzel. 2012. On the prosodic expression of pragmatic prominence: The case of pitch register lowering in Akan. Language and Speech 55(3): 331–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matić, Dejan & Daniel Wedgwood. 2013. The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49(1): 127–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1994. Tone, intonation, and sound symbolism in Lahu: Loading the syllable canon. In John Ohala, Leanne Hinton & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Sound symbolism, 115–129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McDonough, Joyce. 2003. The prosody of interrogative and focus constructions in Navajo. In Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley & and MaryAnn Willie (eds.), Formal approaches to functional phenomena. In honour of Eloise Jelinek, 191–206. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaud, Alexis & Jacqueline Vaissière. 2015. Tone and intonation: Introductory notes and practical recommendations. KALIPHO – Kieler Arbeiten Zur Linguistik Und Phonetik (Theoretical and empirical foundations of experimental phonetics) 31: 43–80.Google Scholar
Michaud, Alexis & Tuan Vu-Ngoc. 2004. Glottalized and nonglottalized tones under emphasis: Open quotient curves remain stable, F0 curve is modified. In Bernard Bel & Isabelle Marlien (eds.), Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004, 745–748. Nara, Japan: ISCA.Google Scholar
Ouyang, Iris Chuoying & Elsi Kaiser. 2015. Prosody and information structure in a tone language: An investigation of Mandarin Chinese. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(1–2): 57–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ozerov, Pavel. 2015. Information structure without topic and focus: Differential object marking in Burmese. Studies in Language 39(2): 386–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Tracing the sources of information structure: Towards the study of interactional management of information. Journal of Pragmatics 1381: 77–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patin, Cédric. 2017. Tone and intonation in Shingazidja. In Laura J. Downing & Annie Rialland (eds.), Intonation in African tone languages, vol. 241, 285–320. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peng, Shu-Hui. 1997. Production and perception of Taiwanese tones in different tonal and prosodic contexts. Journal of Phonetics 25(3): 371–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sax, Daniel J. 2012. Not quite ‘out of the blue’? Towards a dynamic, Relevance-theoretic approach to thetic sentences in English. In Agnieszka Piskorska (ed.), Relevance studies in Poland, vol.41, 24–53. Warsaw: Warsaw University Press.Google Scholar
Schwiertz, Gabriele. 2009. Intonation and prosodic structure in Beaver (Athabaskan) – Explorations on the language of the Danezaa. Cologne: University of Cologne PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 2008. Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of ‘Discourse-New.’ Acta Linguistica Hungarica 551:1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Andrew & Justin Watkins. 2006. Constituent focus in Burmese: A phonetic and perceptual study. In Justin Watkins (ed.), Studies in Burmese linguistics, 27–66. [Pacific Linguistics 570.] Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2019. Understanding ‘clause’ as an emergent ‘unit’ in everyday conversation. Studies in Language 43(2): 254–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Justin. 2003. Tone and intonation in Burmese. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 1289–1292. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Xu, Yi. 1999. Effects of tone and focus on the formation and alignment of F0 contours. Journal of Phonetics 271: 55–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, Yi, Szu-Wei Chen & Bei Wang. 2012. Prosodic focus with and without post-focus compression: A typological divide within the same language family? The Linguistic Review 291: 131–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zerbian, Sabine. 2004. Phonological phrases in Xhosa (Southern Bantu). ZAS Papers in Linguistics 371: 71–99.Google Scholar