Document Type : Research Paper


1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Linguistics, University of Isfahan

2 Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Isfahan


This paper investigates intonational characteristics of yes/no questions in contrast to statements in Persian. Based on Tilt model, acoustic variables including duration, pitch amplitude and tilt are compared between these two sentence types. Since studies (Eslami, 2000; Mahjani, 2003; Mahootiyan, 1997; Sadat Tehrani, 2007) have shown the difference between yes/no question and statement is in the last intonational event, the goal is to determine which acoustic parameters are conceptually important in identifying the type of the sentence. To achieve this, at first, in the production stage, we used statistical analyses in relation to different levels of duration, pitch amplitude and tilt in questions and statements. Then, in the perception stage, first, we manipulated   acoustic variables (duration, pitch amplitude and tilt), then perceptual tests were used to measure the success of work. In the production stage, 40 yes/no questions and their corresponding and statements were read by five Persian speakers, and then through Praat software, the data were analyzed and the acoustic parameters measured. In the next step, by means of Student's t- test, we compared the mean of different variables in the questions and statements. The results of our statistical analyses showed that the average of duration and pitch amplitude except tilt variable were higher in final peak in questions. In the next stage, we manipulated the target points, including: edge f0, final peak, rightmost valley and penultimate valley in order to change the question to statement. Perceptual salience of these acoustic cues was investigated through questionnaire identification tests. The perception tests indicate that only the utterance-final edge F0 is a strong perceptual cue to make a distinction between question and statement. And simoltaneovs manipulation of all target points showed greatest effect on identifying the type of sentence.


Bateni, M. 1991. Tosif- e sakhteman- e zaban-e farsi.Tehran. Amirkabir.
Towhidi, J. 2010. Pazhoheshi dar sotshenasi-ye farsi-ye jadid. Translated by Lotfollah Yar-Mohammadi & Mohammad-Reza Parhizgar. Tehran: Samt.
Sepanta, S. 1975. Barresihay-e tajrobi dar ahange jomle.  Journal of the faculty of literature and human sciences (university of Isfahan). 9: 84- 92.
Bolinger, D. 1978. Intonation across languages, In Universals of human language. Phonology, (J. P. Greenberg, C. A. Ferguson & E.A. Moravcsik, editors), 2:471-524. Stanford, Stanford University Press.
Cruttenden, A. 1997. Intonation, 2nd edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Eslami, M. 2000. Šenaxt-e næva-ye goftar-e zæban-e farsi væ  karbord-e an dær bazsazi væ bazšenasi-ye rayane’i-ye goftar [The prosody of the Persian language and its application in computer-aided speech recognition]. Doctoral  dissertation, University of Tehran.
Gosy, M. & Terken, J. 1994. Question marking in Hungarian: timing and height of    pitch peaks, Journal of Phonetics, 22: 269-281.
Gussenhoven, C. and Chen, A. 2000. Universal and Language-Specific effects in the perception of question intonation, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP) 91-94.
Hadding-Koch, K. & Studdert-Kennedy, M. 1964. An experimental study of some intonation contours, Phonetics, 11: 175-185.
Hayati, M. 1998. A Contrastive analysis of English and Persian intonation, Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics (Pozan, Poland) 34: 53- 72.
Hirst, D. & Di Cristo, A. 1998. A survey of intonation systems, In Intonation systems: a survey of twenty languages, 1-44. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Jun, S 2005. Prosodic typology. In: Jun S editor. Prosodic typology: the phonology of intonation and phrasing, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 430-58.
Kerkhoff, J. 2017. SCRIPT Tilt Analysis and Resynthesis, University of Nijmegen Department of Language and Speech, the Netherlands.
Ladd, R. 1981. On Intonational Universals. In T. Myers et al. (eds.), The Cognitive Representation of Speech, Amsterdam, North Holland Publishing. Ladd, D. R. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Lazard, G. 1992. A grammar of contemporary Persian. English translation. Costa Mesa, California, Mazda. (Translated from French by Shirley Lyons; first published in 1957 as Grammaire du persan contemporain, Paris, Klinksieck).
Lee, Hye sook. 2007.Interrogative Intonation in North Kyungsang Korean: Language- Specificity and Universality of Acoustic and Perceptual Cues, Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory, 16: 57-100.
Mahjani, B. 2003. An Instrumental Study of Prosodic Features and Intonation in      Modern Fars,Linguistics and Social Sciences University of Edinburgh.
MahootianS. 1997. Persian (Descriptive Grammer), 1sted. Routledge.
Makarova, V. 2001. Perceptual Correlates of Sentence-type Intonation in Russian and Japanese, Journal of Phonetics, 29: 137-154.
Sadat- Tehrani, N. 2007. The intonational Grammar of Persian, Doctoral dissertation, university of Manitoba.
Taylor, A.P. 1992. A phonetic model of English intonation: A thesis submitted for the Doctoral  dissertation, UK, University of Edinburg.
ـــــــــــــــــ, A.P. 2009. Text to speech synthesis. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
ــــــــــــــــــ, A.P. 1993. Acoustic recognition of intonation from F0 Contours using the rise/fall connection model, In the Processing of Euro speech, Berlin, 164-178.
ـــــــــــــــــ, A.P. 1995. The rise/fall connection model of intonation, Speech Communication, 1, 168-187.
Vahidian-Kamyar, T. 2001. Næva-ye goftar dær farsi [Melody of speech in Persian],Mashhad, Ferdowsi University Press.
Whitehead, RL, Schiavetti, N, Metz, DE.Gallant, D., Whitehead, BH. 2000. Sentence intonation and syllable tress in speech produced during simultaneous Communication, J Commun Disord. 33(5): 42940; quiz 440-1.