Phonetica was published by Karger Publishers up to and including 2020. If you or your institution subscribed to Phonetica during that period, you might still have access to the full text of this article on the Karger platform if you cannot access it here.
Abstract
The existence of word stress in Indonesian languages has been controversial. Recent acoustic analyses of Papuan Malay suggest that this language has word stress, counter to other studies and unlike closely related languages. The current study further investigates Papuan Malay by means of lexical (non-acoustic) analyses of two different aspects of word stress. In particular, this paper reports two distribution analyses of a word corpus, 1) investigating the extent to which stress patterns may help word recognition and 2) exploring the phonological factors that predict the distribution of stress patterns. The facilitating role of stress patterns in word recognition was investigated in a lexical analysis of word embeddings. The results show that Papuan Malay word stress (potentially) helps to disambiguate words. As for stress predictors, a random forest analysis investigated the effect of multiple morpho-phonological factors on stress placement. It was found that the mid vowels /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ play a central role in stress placement, refining the conclusions of previous work that mainly focused on /ɛ/. The current study confirms that non-acoustic research on stress can complement acoustic research in important ways. Crucially, the combined findings on stress in Papuan Malay so far give rise to an integrated perspective to word stress, in which phonetic, phonological and cognitive factors are considered.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper. Parts of this work are based on earlier studies: Kaland et al. (2019) and Kaland and Van Heuven (2020).
Author contributions: CK: concept and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting and revising manuscript. AK: interpretation of data, revising manuscript. VvH: interpretation of data, revising manuscript.
Funding sources: The research for this paper has been funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – Project-ID 281511265 – SFB 1252 Prominence in Language.
Conflict of interest statement: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Statement of ethics: The paper is exempt from ethical committee approval. No humans were tested for the analyses reported in this paper.
References
Arnold, Denis, Petra Wagner & Harald Baayen. 2013. Using generalized additive models and random forests to model prosodic prominence in German. In Frédéric Bimbot, Christophe Cerisara, Cécile Fougeron, Guillaume Gravier, Lori Lamel, François Pellegrino & Pascal Perrier (eds.), Proceedings of Interspeech 2013, 272–276. Lyon: International Speech Communications Association. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:mh39-59553.10.21437/Interspeech.2013-82Search in Google Scholar
Baumann, Stefan & Bodo Winter. 2018. What makes a word prominent? Predicting untrained German listeners’ perceptual judgments. Journal of Phonetics 70. 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.05.004.Search in Google Scholar
Breiman, Leo. 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45(1). 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324.10.1023/A:1010933404324Search in Google Scholar
Clements, George Nickerson. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In John Kingston & Mary E. Beckman (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology, 1st edn., 283–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627736.017, https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/CBO9780511627736A024/type/book_part (accessed 15 September 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Cooper, Nicole, Anne Cutler & Roger Wales. 2002. Constraints of lexical stress on lexical access in English: Evidence from native and non-native listeners. Language and Speech 45(3). 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309020450030101.Search in Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne. 1986. Forbear is a homophone: Lexical prosody does not constrain lexical access. Language and Speech 29(3). 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383098602900302.Search in Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne. 2005. Lexical stress. In David B. Pisoni & Robert E. Remez (eds.), The handbook of speech perception, 264–289. Malden, MA: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757024.ch11.Search in Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne. 2012. Native listening: Language experience and the recognition of spoken words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9012.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne, Dennis Norris & Nuria Sebastián-Gallés. 2004. Phonemic repertoire and similarity within the vocabulary. In Myung-Jin Bae & Myung-Sook Kim (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (Interspeech 2004-ICSLP), 65–68. (accessed 18 October 2019).10.21437/Interspeech.2004-61Search in Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne & Dennis Pasveer. 2006. Explaining cross-linguistic differences in effects of lexical stress on spoken-word recognition. In Rüdiger Hoffmann & Hansjörg Mixdorff (eds.), Proceedings of speech prosody 2006, paper 250. Dresden: TUD press. http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-1DBB-6.Search in Google Scholar
Domahs, Ulrike, Johannes Knaus, Paula Orzechowska & Richard Wiese. 2012. Stress “deafness” in a language with fixed word stress: An ERP study on polish. Frontiers in Psychology 3(439). 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00439.Search in Google Scholar
Goedemans, Rob. 1998. Weightless segments: A phonetic and phonological study concerning the metrical irrelevance of syllable onsets (LOT 9). The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Search in Google Scholar
Goedemans, Rob W. N. & Ellen van Zanten. 2007. Stress and accent in Indonesian. In Vincent J. van Heuven & Ellen van Zanten (eds.), Prosody in Indonesian languages) (LOT Occasional Series 9), 35–62. Utrecht: LOT, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/296769.Search in Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2005. A perceptually-driven account of onset-sensitive stress. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23(3). 595–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-8874-9.Search in Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason & Stephanie Shih. 2011. New approaches to end weight. In Proceedings of variation and typology: New trends in syntactic research, 25–27. Helsinki. https://www.academia.edu/1374901/New_Approaches_to_End_Weight.Search in Google Scholar
Grice, Martine, Michelina Savino, Alessandro O. Caffò & Timo B. Roettger. 2015. The tune drives the text: Schwa in consonant-final loan words in Italian. In Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 10–14. Glasgow. https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2015/Papers/ICPHS0103.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Uri Tadmor (eds.). 2009. World loanword database (WOLD). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://wold.clld.org/.Search in Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago, OH: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Daniel Kaufman. 2020. Prosodic systems: Austronesia. In Carlos Gussenhoven & Aoju Chen (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language prosody, vol. IV Prosodic systems-areal groupings, 369–380. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198832232.013.28.Search in Google Scholar
Kaland, Constantijn. 2019. Acoustic correlates of word stress in Papuan Malay. Journal of Phonetics 74. 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2019.02.003.Search in Google Scholar
Kaland, Constantijn. 2020. Offline and online processing of acoustic cues to word stress in Papuan Malay. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 147(2). 731–747. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0000578.Search in Google Scholar
Kaland, Constantijn. & Stefan Baumann. 2020. Demarcating and highlighting in Papuan Malay phrase prosody. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 147(4). 2974–2988. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0001008.Search in Google Scholar
Kaland, Constantijn. & Vincent. J. Van Heuven. 2020. Papuan Malay word stress reduces lexical alternatives. In Nobuaki Minematsu, Mariko Kondo, Takayuki Arai & Ryoko Hayashi (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Speech Prosody 2020, 454–458. Baixas: International Speech Communication Association (ISCA).10.21437/SpeechProsody.2020-93Search in Google Scholar
Kaland, Constantijn. Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Angela Kluge. 2019. Stress predictors in a Papuan Malay random forest. In Sasha Calhoun, Paola Escudero & Marija Tabain (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 2871–2875. Melbourne.Search in Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1997. Quality-sensitive stress. Rivista di linguistica 9. 157–188.10.1002/9780470756171.ch9Search in Google Scholar
Kluge, Angela. 2017. A grammar of Papuan Malay. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.17169/langsci.b78.35.Search in Google Scholar
Kluge, Angela, Benny A. W. Rumaropen & Lodowik Aweta. 2014. Papuan Malay data – Word list. Dallas, TX: SIL International. https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/59649.Search in Google Scholar
Laksman, Mirna. 1994. Location of stress in Indonesian words and sentences. In Odé Cecilia, Vincent van Heuven & Ellen van Zanten (eds.), Experimental studies of Indonesian prosody, 108–139. Leiden: Vakgroep Talen en Culturen van Zuidoost-Azië en Oceanië Rijksuniversiteit Leiden.Search in Google Scholar
Liaw, Andy & Matthew Wiener. 2002. Classification and regression by RandomForest. R News 2. 18–22.Search in Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 2009. Patterns of sounds (Cambridge studies in speech science and communication), 1st edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 2011. Phonological complexity in linguistic patterning. In Wai-Sum Lee & Eric Zee (eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhs XVII), 28–34. City University of Hong Kong. https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2011/OnlineProceedings/PlenaryLecture/Maddieson/Maddieson.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Maskikit-Essed, Raechel & Carlos Gussenhoven. 2016. No stress, no pitch accent, no prosodic focus: The case of Ambonese Malay. Phonology 33(2). 353–389. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675716000154.Search in Google Scholar
McQueen, James M., Anne Cutler, Ted Briscoe & Dennis Norris. 1995. Models of continuous speech recognition and the contents of the vocabulary. Language and Cognitive Processes 10(3–4). 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969508407098.Search in Google Scholar
Paauw, Scott H. 2009. The Malay contact varieties of eastern Indonesia: A typological comparison. http://ubir.buffalo.edu/xmlui/handle/10477/45490 11 July 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Parker, Stephen G. 2002. Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3546.4005.Search in Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon, Inga Vendelin & Emmanuel Dupoux. 2010. Perception of predictable stress: A cross-linguistic investigation. Journal of Phonetics 38(3). 422–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2010.04.001.Search in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2019. R: The R project for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org/ (11 July, 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Riesberg, Sonja, Janina Kalbertodt, Stefan Baumann & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. 2018. On the perception of prosodic prominences and boundaries in Papuan Malay. In Sonja Riesberg, Asako Shiohara & Atsuko Utsumi (eds.), Perspectives on information structure in Austronesian languages, 389–414. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1402559.Search in Google Scholar
Riesberg, Sonja, Janina Kalbertodt, Stefan Baumann & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. 2020. Using Rapid Prosody Transcription to probe little-known prosodic systems: The case of Papuan Malay. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 11(1). 8.10.5334/labphon.192Search in Google Scholar
Ryan, Kevin M. 2014. Onsets contribute to syllable weight: Statistical evidence from stress and meter. Language 90(2). 309–341. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0029.Search in Google Scholar
Ryan, Kevin M. 2016. Phonological weight. Language and Linguistics Compass 10(12). 720–733. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12229.Search in Google Scholar
Scott, Charles Payson Gurley. 1896. The Malayan words in English. Journal of the American Oriental Society 18. 49–124.10.2307/592299Search in Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. On the major class features and syllable theory. In Mark Aronoff & Richard Oehrle (eds.), Language Sound Structure, 107–136. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie. 2013. Random Forests, for model (and predictor) selection. Unpublished course material. UCLA 251. Variation in Phonology. http://www.bcf.usc.edu/∼shihs/shih_random forests.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Stevens, Alan M. & A. Schmidgall Tellings. 2010. A comprehensive Indonesian-English dictionary, 2nd ed. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Thomas Kneib, Thomas Augustin & Achim Zeileis. 2008. Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics 9(1). 307. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-307.Search in Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Torsten Hothorn & Achim Zeileis. 2009a. Party on! The R Journal 1(2). 14. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2009-013.Search in Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, James Malley & Gerhard Tutz. 2009b. An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods 14(4). 323–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016973.Search in Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & R. Harald Baayen. 2012. Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2). 135–178. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000129.Search in Google Scholar
Van Heuven, Vincent J., Lilie Roosman & Ellen van Zanten. 2008. Betawi Malay word prosody. Lingua 118(9). 1271–1287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.005.Search in Google Scholar
Van Heuven, Vincent J. & Ellen Van Zanten. 1997. Effects of substrate language on the localization and perceptual evaluation of pitch movements in Indonesian. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, 63–80. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/63067.Search in Google Scholar
Van Heuven, Vincent J. & Ellen Van Zanten. 2007. Prosody in Indonesian languages (LOT occasional series 9). Utrecht: LOT, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics. http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/296769 (accessed 11 July 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Van Minde, Don. 1997. Malayu Ambong: Phonology, morphology, syntax. Leiden: Research School CNWS.Search in Google Scholar
Van Zanten, Ellen, Ruben B. Stoel & Bert Remijsen. 2010. Stress types in Austronesian languages. In H. Van der Hulst (ed.), A survey of word accentual patterns in the languages of the world, 87–112. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198966.1.87Search in Google Scholar
Van Zanten, Ellen & Vincent J. Van Heuven. 1984. The Indonesian vowels as pronounced and perceived by Toba Batak, Sundanese and Javanese speakers. Bijdragen tot de taal-, land- en volkenkunde/Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia 140(4). 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134379-90003411.Search in Google Scholar
Van Zanten, Ellen & Vincent J. Van Heuven. 2004. Word stress in Indonesian: Fixed or free? NUSA Linguistic Studies of Indonesian and other Languages in Indonesia 53. 1–20.Search in Google Scholar
Wright, Marvin N. & Andreas Ziegler. 2017. ranger: A fast implementation of random forests for high dimensional data in C++ and R. Journal of Statistical Software 77(1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v077.i01. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v77/i01/ (accessed 23 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar
Yu, Jenny, Robert Mailhammer & Anne Cutler. 2020. Vocabulary structure affects word recognition: Evidence from German listeners. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Speech Prosody 2020, 474–478. Tokyo: ISCA. https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2020-97.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
