---
title: "Syllable weight, vowel length and focus in Lebanese Arabic — Kelly 2021"
description: "Kelly therefore proposes a mixed analysis: A long vowel before a consonant cluster sits in an open syllable, and the… 83 references, cited by 1 paper here."
authors: ["Niamh Kelly"]
year: 2021
venue: "Glossa: a journal of general linguistics"
source: "https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/5727/"
doi: "10.16995/glossa.5727"
licence: "CC BY 4.0"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/kelly-2021-syllable-weight-vowel-length-focus/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/kelly-2021-syllable-weight-vowel-length-focus/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [2021](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2021/page/5/) / Syllable weight, vowel length and focus in Lebanese Arabic

# Syllable weight, vowel length and focus in Lebanese Arabic

**Authors:** Niamh Kelly · **Year:** 2021 · **Venue:** [Glossa: a journal of general linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/glossa-a-journal-of-general-linguistics/) · **Publisher:** [Ubiquity Press](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/publishers/ubiquity-press/) · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5727) · [PDF](https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/5727/galley/21613/download) · [DOI 10.16995/glossa.5727](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5727) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W3211569254)

**Citations:** 2 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14) · [1](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/kelly-2021-syllable-weight-vowel-length-focus/cited-by/) in our library, of the 140,884 papers whose bibliographies we read

## Summary
Kelly examines how vowel duration in Lebanese Arabic depends on phonological vowel length, the structure of the syllable and contrastive focus. The study tests mora-sharing accounts of Levantine syllables, which earlier rested on very small samples, especially for non-final syllables closed by a singleton consonant. The materials were disyllabic words whose stressed first syllable was open or closed and held a long or short vowel. Each word was recorded both outside focus and under contrastive focus. Word, syllable, rime and vowel durations were analysed with mixed-effects regressions that included speaker and item random effects.

Focus made words, stressed syllables and long vowels longer. Short vowels became shorter before a singleton coda but kept their length before a geminate. Long vowels kept their length before a singleton followed by another consonant. Kelly therefore proposes a mixed analysis:
* A long vowel before a consonant cluster sits in an open syllable, and the first consonant forms a semisyllable (Kiparsky 2003).
* A long vowel before a geminate shares a mora with the following consonant.
* A short vowel before a singleton coda undergoes phonetic compensatory shortening.

The broader lesson is that geminates and consonant clusters should not be assumed to behave alike.

## Key points
- The design crosses four factors: open vs closed stressed initial syllable, long vs short vowel, focus condition, and coda type (singleton vs geminate).
- Contrastive focus lengthened whole words, stressed syllables and phonologically long vowels.
- Vowel duration was best modelled with a three-way interaction of VLength, Syl.Str and Condition in `lmer`, with random intercepts for speaker and vowel quality. Neither onset (p = 0.441) nor voicing (p = 0.126) improved this model.
- Prior work frames the study:
  - Khattab & Al-Tamimi (2014) showed that only long vowels shorten before geminates in Lebanese Arabic.
  - The same study reported short-to-long vowel ratios of 1:2.1 before singletons and 1:1.91 before geminates.
- The proposed analysis rests on one idea: trimoraic (superheavy) syllables are avoided at all costs. Two different repair strategies serve this goal, and short vowels never need either one.

## Interesting ideas
- Contexts that look the same on the surface, here clusters and geminates, may need different underlying mechanisms, so the evidence should decide whether to merge them.
- Predictors were added to a model one at a time and kept only when a nested-model test showed a real improvement.
- Random intercepts for speaker and item stop a few talkers or words from driving the conclusions.
- One overriding constraint, avoiding superheavy syllables, accounts for several surface patterns that look unrelated.
- A factorial design crosses the factors so that each effect and interaction can be measured separately.

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (tree): In UD dialect conversion, check corpus behaviour before mapping two look-alike constructions onto one relation, rather than collapsing them by assumption.
- **I2** (learn): Admit a new parser feature or repair rule only if a paired, significance-tested comparison against the current model favours it, so the feature set stays small and justified.
- **I3** (learn): When scoring Mova, group results by source document or item template so that one strongly represented text cannot inflate the measured gains.
- **I4** (frames): Pragmatic rules could be organised around a few high-priority constraints, with each output traced back to the constraint it satisfies, which keeps explanations short.
- **I5** (answer): Build school-test and fable-QA probes that systematically cross features such as negation, tense and focus, so that failures can be pinned to a specific interaction.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

## Institutions

Also on the byline: [The University of Texas at El Paso](https://ror.org/04d5vba33).

📚 Shelves (6): [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 7,418 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 7,357 works · [🤝 Social Sciences](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/social-sciences/) · 600 works · [💭 Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/) · 593 works · [💭 Experimental and Cognitive Psychology](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/psychology/experimental-and-cognitive-psychology/) · 343 works · [🎓 Education](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/social-sciences/education/) · 102 works

🧭 Topics (1): [Semitic languages](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/semitic-languages/) · 1,336 works

## Cite

Cite as: Niamh Kelly. 2021. Syllable weight, vowel length and focus in Lebanese Arabic. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@article{kelly2021syllable,
  title = {{Syllable weight, vowel length and focus in Lebanese Arabic}},
  author = {Niamh Kelly},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2021},
  doi = {10.16995/glossa.5727},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5727}
}
```

- [← previous SiPOS: A Benchmark Dataset for Sindhi Part-of-Speech Tagging](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/ali-2021-sipos-benchmark-dataset-sindhi-part/)
- [next → A semantic comparison of the conclusion of LXX Tobit and Semitic 4QTobit](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/evans-2021-semantic-comparison-conclusion-lxx-tobit/)
- [↑ back to papers of 2021](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/2021/page/5/)

## References

83 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Abdul-Karim, Kamal. 1980. Aspects of the Phonology of Lebanese Arabic. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Abdul%2DKarim%2C+Kamal%2E+1980%2E+Aspects+of+the+Phonology+of+Lebanese+Arabic%2E+Doctoral+Dissertation%2C+University+of+Illinois+at+Urbana%2DChampaign%2E)
2. Abu-Salim, Issam & Abdel-Jawad, Hassan. 1988. Syllable patterns in Levantine Arabic. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 18(2). 1–22. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Abu%2DSalim%2C+Issam+%26+Abdel%2DJawad%2C+Hassan%2E+1988%2E+Syllable+patterns+in+Levantine+Arabic%2E+Studies+in+the+Linguistic+Sciences+18%282%29%2E+1%E2%80%9322%2E)
3. Al-Tamimi, Feda Y. 2004. An experimental phonetic study of intervocalic singleton and geminate sonorants in Jordanian Arabic. Al-Arabiyya 37. 37–52. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Al%2DTamimi%2C+Feda+Y%2E+2004%2E+An+experimental+phonetic+study+of+intervocalic+singleton+and+geminate+sonorants+in+Jordanian+Arabic%2E+Al%2DArabiyya+37%2E+37%E2%80%9352%2E)
4. Almalki, Hussain. 2020. The Production and Perception of Prosodic Prominence in Urban Najdi Arabic. Doctoral Dissertation, George Mason University, Virginia. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Almalki%2C+Hussain%2E+2020%2E+The+Production+and+Perception+of+Prosodic+Prominence+in+Urban+Najdi+Arabic%2E+Doctoral+Dissertation%2C+George+Mason+University%2C+Virginia%2E)
5. Aoun, Yosef. 1979. Is the syllable or the supersyllable a constituent? MIT Working Papers in Linguistic 1. 140–148. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Aoun%2C+Yosef%2E+1979%2E+Is+the+syllable+or+the+supersyllable+a+constituent%3F+MIT+Working+Papers+in+Linguistic+1%2E+140%E2%80%93148%2E)
6. Arnhold, Anja & Kyröläinen, Aki-Juhani. 2017. Modelling the Interplay of Multiple Cues in Prosodic Focus Marking. Laboratory Phonology 8(1). 1–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ labphon.78 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/)
7. Arvaniti, Amalia. 2016. Analytical Decisions in Intonation Research and the Role of Representations: Lessons from Romani. Laboratory Phonology 7(1). 1–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.14 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.14)
8. Bamakhramah, Majdi A. 2009. Syllable Structure in Arabic Varieties with a Focus on Superheavy Syllables. Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University, Indiana, United States. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bamakhramah%2C+Majdi+A%2E+2009%2E+Syllable+Structure+in+Arabic+Varieties+with+a+Focus+on+Superheavy+Syllables%2E+Doctoral+Dissertation%2C+Indiana+University%2C+Indiana%2C+United+States%2E)
9. Bannert, Robert. 1979. The effect of sentence accent on quantity. In Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 253–259. Copenhagen. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bannert%2C+Robert%2E+1979%2E+The+effect+of+sentence+accent+on+quantity%2E+In+Proceedings+of+the+9th+International+Congress+of+Phonetic+Sciences%2C+253%E2%80%93259%2E+Copenhagen%2E)
10. Blevins, Juliette. 1993. A Tonal Analysis of Lithuanian Nominal Accent. Language 69. 237–273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/416534 [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/416534)
11. Botne, Robert & Davis, Stuart. 2000. Language games, segment imposition, and the syllable. Studies in Language 24(2). 319–344. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.2.04bot [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.24.2.04bot)
12. Broselow, Ellen. 1992. Parametric variation in Arabic dialect phonology. In Broselow, Ellen & Eid, Mushira & McCarthy, John J. (eds.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics IV, 7–45. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.85.04bro [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.85.04bro)
13. Broselow, Ellen & Chen, Su-I & Huffman, Marie. 1997. Syllable weight: convergence of phonology and phonetics. Phonology 14(1). 47–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S095267579700331X [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s095267579700331x)
14. Broselow, Ellen & Huffman, Marie & Chen, Sui-I & Hsieh, Ruohmei. 1995. The timing structure of CVVC syllables. In Eid, Mushira (ed.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics VII, 119–138. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.130.11bro [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.130.11bro)
15. Bruce, Gösta. 1977. Swedish word accents in sentence perspective. Travaux de L’Institut de Linguistique de Lund 12. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bruce%2C+G%C3%B6sta%2E+1977%2E+Swedish+word+accents+in+sentence+perspective%2E+Travaux+de+L%E2%80%99Institut+de+Linguistique+de+Lund+12%2E)
16. Bruce, Gösta. 1981. Tonal and temporal interplay. In Working Papers 21, 49–60. Dept. of Linguistics, Lund University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bruce%2C+G%C3%B6sta%2E+1981%2E+Tonal+and+temporal+interplay%2E+In+Working+Papers+21%2C+49%E2%80%9360%2E+Dept%2E+of+Linguistics%2C+Lund+University%2E)
17. Cambier-Langeveld, Tina & Turk, Alice E. 1999. A cross-linguistic study of accentual lengthening: Dutch vs. English. Journal of Phonetics 27. 255–280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1999.0096 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1999.0096)
18. Campbell, Nick & Beckman, Mary E. 1997. Accent, stress and spectral tilt. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101(5). 3195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.419208 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1121/1.419208)
19. Carlisle, Robert. 2001. Syllable structure universals and second language acquisition. International Journal of English Studies 1. 1–19. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Carlisle%2C+Robert%2E+2001%2E+Syllable+structure+universals+and+second+language+acquisition%2E+International+Journal+of+English+Studies+1%2E+1%E2%80%9319%2E)
20. Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Li, Charles N. (ed.), Subject and Topic, 27–55. New York: Academic Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chafe%2C+Wallace+L%2E+1976%2E+Givenness%2C+contrastiveness%2C+definiteness%2C+subjects%2C+topics+and+point+of+view%2E+In+Li%2C+Charles+N%2E+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Subject+and+Topic%2C+27%E2%80%9355%2E+New+York%3A+Academic+Press%2E)
21. Chahal, Dana. 2001. Modelling the Intonation of Lebanese Arabic Using the Autosegmental-Metrical Framework: A comparison with English. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Melbourne, Melbourne. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chahal%2C+Dana%2E+2001%2E+Modelling+the+Intonation+of+Lebanese+Arabic+Using+the+Autosegmental%2DMetrical+Framework%3A+A+comparison+with+English%2E+Doctoral+Dissertation%2C+University+of+Melbourne%2C+Melbourne%2E)
22. Chahal, Dana. 2003. Phonetic Cues to Prominence in Lebanese Arabic. In 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chahal%2C+Dana%2E+2003%2E+Phonetic+Cues+to+Prominence+in+Lebanese+Arabic%2E+In+15th+International+Congress+of+Phonetic+Sciences%2E+Barcelona%2E)
23. Clements, George N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, 283–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511627736.017 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/)
24. Clopper, Cynthia & Tonhauser, Judith. 2013. The prosody of focus in Paraguayan Guaraní. International Journal of American Linguistics 79(2). 219–251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/669629 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1086/669629)
25. Cohn, Abigail. 2003. Phonological structure and phonetic duration: the role of the mora. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 15. 69–100. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cohn%2C+Abigail%2E+2003%2E+Phonological+structure+and+phonetic+duration%3A+the+role+of+the+mora%2E+Working+Papers+of+the+Cornell+Phonetics+Laboratory+15%2E+69%E2%80%93100%2E)
26. Cooper, William E. & Eady, Stephen J. & Mueller, Pamela R. 1985. Acoustical aspects of contrastive stress in question-answer contexts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 77(6). 2142–2156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.392372 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1121/1.392372)
27. Davis, Stuart & Ragheb, Marwa. 2014. Geminate representation in Arabic. In Farwaneh, Samira & Ouali, Hamid (eds.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXIV–XXV, 3–19. Texas and Arizona, United States. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sal.1.04dav [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/sal.1.04dav)
28. de Jong, Kenneth & Zawaydeh, Bushra Adnan. 2002. Comparing stress, lexical focus, and segmental focus: patterns of variation in Arabic vowel duration. Journal of Phonetics 30. 53–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2001.0151 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.2001.0151)
29. Eefting, Wieke. 1991. The effect of “information value” and “accentuation” on the duration of Dutch words, syllables, and segments. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 89(1). 412–424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.400475 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1121/1.400475)
30. Goldman, Jean-Philippe. 2011. EasyAlign: an automatic phonetic alignment tool under Praat. In Proceedings of InterSpeech. Firenze, Italy. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2011-815 [↗](https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2011-815)
31. Goldman, Jean-Philippe & Schwab, Sandra. 2014. Easyalign Spanish: An (Semi-)Automatic Segmentation Tool Under Praat. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-107124 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-107124)
32. Gordon, Matthew J. 2002. A phonetically driven account of syllable weight. Language 78(1). 51–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0020 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0020)
33. Gordon, Matthew J. 2005. A perceptually-driven account of onset-sensitive stress. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23(3). 595–653. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-8874-9 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-8874-9)
34. Haddad, Ghassan F. 1984. Problems and Issues in the Phonology of Lebanese Arabic. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Haddad%2C+Ghassan+F%2E+1984%2E+Problems+and+Issues+in+the+Phonology+of+Lebanese+Arabic%2E+Doctoral+Dissertation%2C+University+of+Illinois+at+Urbana%2DChampaign%2C+Illinois%2E)
35. Hall, Nancy. 2013. Acoustic differences between lexical and epenthetic vowels in Lebanese Arabic. Journal of Phonetics 41(2). 133–143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2012.12.001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2012.12.001)
36. Hall, Nancy. 2017. Phonetic neutralization in Palestinian Arabic vowel shortening, with implications for lexical organization. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2(1). 48. 1–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.257 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.257) [our card](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/hall-2017-phonetic-neutralization-palestinian-arabic-vowel/)
37. Ham, William. 1998. Phonetic and Phonological Aspects of Geminate Timing. Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University, Cornell, USA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ham%2C+William%2E+1998%2E+Phonetic+and+Phonological+Aspects+of+Geminate+Timing%2E+Doctoral+Dissertation%2C+Cornell+University%2C+Cornell%2C+USA%2E)
38. Hansen, Benjamin B. 2003. Production of Persian geminate stops: Effects of varying speaking rate. In Agwuele, Augustine & Warren, Willis & Park, Sang-Hoon (eds.), Texas Linguistics Society Conference, 86–95. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hansen%2C+Benjamin+B%2E+2003%2E+Production+of+Persian+geminate+stops%3A+Effects+of+varying+speaking+rate%2E+In+Agwuele%2C+Augustine+%26+Warren%2C+Willis+%26+Park%2C+Sang%2DHoon+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Texas+Linguistics+Society+Conference%2C)
39. Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 253– 306. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hayes%2C+Bruce%2E+1989%2E+Compensatory+lengthening+in+moraic+phonology%2E+Linguistic+Inquiry+20%2E+253%E2%80%93+306%2E)
40. Hellmuth, Sam. 2011. Acoustic cues to focus and givenness in Egyptian Arabic. In Majeed Hassan, Zeki & Heselwood, Barry (eds.), Instrumental Studies in Arabic Phonetics, 299–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.319.14hel [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.319.14hel)
41. House, Arthur S. 1961. On vowel duration in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 33. 1174–1178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1908941 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1908941)
42. House, Arthur S. & Fairbanks, Grant. 1953. The influence of consonant environment upon the secondary acoustical characteristics of vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 25. 105–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1906982 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1906982)
43. Hubbard, Kathleen. 1993. Mapping phonological structure to phonetic timing: moras and duration in two Bantu languages. Berkeley Linguistics Society 19. 182–192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/ bls.v19i1.1514 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/)
44. Hyman, Larry. 1985. A theory of phonological weight. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110854794 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110854794)
45. Idemaru, Kaori & Guion, Susan. 2008. Acoustic covariants of length contrast in Japanese stops. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 38(2). 167–186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0025100308003459 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/)
46. Jongman, Allard. 1998. Effects of vowel length and syllable structure on segment duration in Dutch. Phonetics 26(3). 207–222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1998.0075 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1998.0075)
47. Katz, Jonah & Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. Contrastive focus vs. discourse-new: Evidence from phonetic prominence in English. Language 87. 771–816. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/ lan.2011.0076 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/)
48. Kelly, Niamh E. 2021. Phrase-final lengthening across segments in Lebanese Arabic. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 42(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0001385 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0001385)
49. Kelly, Niamh E. & Smiljanić, Rajka. 2017. The Effect of Focus and Phrase Position on East Norwegian Lexical Tonal Accents. Phonetica 74(4). 193–230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000453270 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1159/000453270)
50. Kenstowicz, Michael. 1970. On the Notation of Vowel Length in Lithuanian. Papers in Linguistics 3(1). 73–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08351817009389141 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/08351817009389141)
51. Khattab, Ghada. 2002. Sociolinguistic competence and the bilingual’s adoption of phonetic variants: Auditory and instrumental data from English-Arabic bilinguals. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Khattab%2C+Ghada%2E+2002%2E+Sociolinguistic+competence+and+the+bilingual%E2%80%99s+adoption+of+phonetic+variants%3A+Auditory+and+instrumental+data+from+English%2DArabic+bilinguals%2E+Doctoral+Dissertation%2C+University+of+)
52. Khattab, Ghada & Al-Tamimi, Jalal. 2014. Geminate timing in Lebanese Arabic: the relationship between phonetic timing and phonological structure. Laboratory Phonology 5(2). 231–269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2014-0009 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2014-0009)
53. Kiparsky, Paul. 2003. Syllables and moras in Arabic. In Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.), The Syllable in Optimality Theory, 147–182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497926.007 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511497926.007)
54. Kuznetsova, Alexandra & Brockhoff, Per B. & Christensen, Rune H. B. 2017. lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software 82(13). 1–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 [↗](https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13)
55. Lennes, Mietta. 2017. SpeCT – Speech Corpus Toolkit for Praat (v1.0.0). First release on GitHub. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.375923 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.375923)
56. Lenth, Russell. 2019. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. URL: [https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans](https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans) [↗](https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans)
57. Lowenstamm, Jean. 1996. CV as the only syllable type. In Durand, Jacques & Laks, Bernard (eds.), Current trends in Phonology: Models and Methods, 419–441. Manchester, Salford. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lowenstamm%2C+Jean%2E+1996%2E+CV+as+the+only+syllable+type%2E+In+Durand%2C+Jacques+%26+Laks%2C+Bernard+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Current+trends+in+Phonology%3A+Models+and+Methods%2C+419%E2%80%93441%2E+Manchester%2C+Salford%2E)
58. Maddieson, Ian. 1997. Phonetic Universals. In Laver, John & Hardcastle, William J. (eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences, 619–639. Oxford: Blackwell. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Maddieson%2C+Ian%2E+1997%2E+Phonetic+Universals%2E+In+Laver%2C+John+%26+Hardcastle%2C+William+J%2E+%28eds%2E%29%2C+The+handbook+of+phonetic+sciences%2C+619%E2%80%93639%2E+Oxford%3A+Blackwell%2E)
59. Mai, Anna. 2020. Phonetic effects of onset complexity on the English syllable. Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology 11(1): 4. 1–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.148 [↗](https://doi.org/10.5334/labphon.148)
60. Makki, Elrabih Massoud. 1983. The Lebanese Dialect of Arabic: Southern region. Doctoral Dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Makki%2C+Elrabih+Massoud%2E+1983%2E+The+Lebanese+Dialect+of+Arabic%3A+Southern+region%2E+Doctoral+Dissertation%2C+Georgetown+University%2C+Washington%2C+D%2EC%2E)
61. McCarthy, John. 1979. On stress and syllabification. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 443–466. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=McCarthy%2C+John%2E+1979%2E+On+stress+and+syllabification%2E+Linguistic+Inquiry+10%2E+443%E2%80%93466%2E)
62. McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan. 1986. Prosodic morphology. (Unpublished manuscript). University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Brandeis University. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=McCarthy%2C+John+%26+Prince%2C+Alan%2E+1986%2E+Prosodic+morphology%2E+%28Unpublished+manuscript%29%2E+University+of+Massachusetts%2C+Amherst+and+Brandeis+University%2E)
63. Mitleb, Fares M. 1984. Voicing effect on vowel duration is not an absolute universal. Journal of Phonetics 12. 23–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30847-2 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0095-4470(19)30847-2)
64. Nasr, Raja T. 1959. The predictability of stress in Lebanese Arabic. Phonetica 4(2). 89–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000257994 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1159/000257994)
65. Nasr, Raja T. 1960. Phonemic length in Lebanese Arabic. Phonetica 5(3/4). 209–211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000258058 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1159/000258058)
66. Niebuhr, Oliver. 2012. At the edge of intonation - The interplay of utterance-final F0 movements and voiceless fricative sounds in German. Phonetica 69(1–2). 7–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000343171 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1159/000343171)
67. Obégi, Michel. 1971. The Phonemic System of a Lebanese Arabic Dialect. Master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ob%C3%A9gi%2C+Michel%2E+1971%2E+The+Phonemic+System+of+a+Lebanese+Arabic+Dialect%2E+Master%E2%80%99s+thesis%2C+Simon+Fraser+University%2C+Burnaby%2C+B%2EC%2E)
68. Peterson, Gordon E. & Lehiste, Ilse. 1960. Duration of syllable nuclei in English. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 32. 693–703. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1908183 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1908183)
69. Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Pierrehumbert%2C+Janet%2E+1980%2E+The+phonology+and+phonetics+of+English+intonation%2E+Doctoral+Dissertation%2C+MIT%2E)
70. Port, Robert & Dalby, Jonathan & O’Dell, Michael. 1987. Evidence for mora timing in Japanese. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 81. 1574–1585. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.394510 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1121/1.394510)
71. R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: [http://www.R-project.org](http://www.R-project.org), ISBN 3-900051-07-0. [↗](http://www.R-project.org)
72. Rooth, Mats E. 1985. Association with Focus. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rooth%2C+Mats+E%2E+1985%2E+Association+with+Focus%2E+Doctoral+Dissertation%2C+University+of+Massachusetts%2C+Amherst%2E)
73. Ryan, Kevin. 2014. Onsets contribute to syllable weight: Statistical evidence from stress and meter. Language 90(2). 309–341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0029 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2014.0029)
74. Sakr, Georges. 2019. A Laboratory Phonology Investigation into the Vocalic Inventory of Lebanese. Master’s thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sakr%2C+Georges%2E+2019%2E+A+Laboratory+Phonology+Investigation+into+the+Vocalic+Inventory+of+Lebanese%2E+Master%E2%80%99s+thesis%2C+University+of+Edinburgh%2C+Edinburgh%2C+Scotland%2E)
75. Scheer, Tobias. 2004. A lateral theory of phonology Vol. I. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110908336 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110908336)
76. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1981. Epenthesis and degenerate syllables in Cairene Arabic. In Borer, Hagit & Aoun, Yosef (eds.), Theoret- ical issues in the grammar of Semitic languages, 111–140. Cambridge: MIT. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Selkirk%2C+Elisabeth%2E+1981%2E+Epenthesis+and+degenerate+syllables+in+Cairene+Arabic%2E+In+Borer%2C+Hagit+%26+Aoun%2C+Yosef+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Theoret%2D+ical+issues+in+the+grammar+of+Semitic+languages%2C+111%E2%80%93140%2E+Cambridge%3A+MIT)
77. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. On the major class features and syllable theory. In Aronoff, Mark & Oehrle, Richard (eds.), Language Sound Structure, 107–136. Cambridge: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Selkirk%2C+Elisabeth%2E+1984%2E+On+the+major+class+features+and+syllable+theory%2E+In+Aronoff%2C+Mark+%26+Oehrle%2C+Richard+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Language+Sound+Structure%2C+107%E2%80%93136%2E+Cambridge%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
78. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2008. Contrastive focus, givenness and the unmarked status of “discourse-new”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55. 331–346. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.55.2008.3-4.8 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1556/aling.55.2008.3-4.8)
79. Versteegh, Kees. 1997. The Arabic language. New York: Columbia University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Versteegh%2C+Kees%2E+1997%2E+The+Arabic+language%2E+New+York%3A+Columbia+University+Press%2E)
80. Watson, Janet C. E. 2002. The phonology and morphology of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Watson%2C+Janet+C%2E+E%2E+2002%2E+The+phonology+and+morphology+of+Arabic%2E+Oxford%3A+Oxford+University+Press%2E)
81. Watson, Janet C. E. 2007. Syllabification patterns in Arabic dialects: long segments and mora sharing. Phonology 24. 335–356. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675707001224 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675707001224)
82. Watson, Janet C. E. 2011. Word stress in Arabic. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 2990– 3019. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0124 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0124)
83. Xu, Yi & Xu, Ching X. 2005. Phonetic realization of focus in English declarative intonation. Journal of Phonetics 33. 159–197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2004.11.001 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2004.11.001)

*Updated 23 October 2026*