{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03680981595092025, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.625, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Preliminary Model of Tatar Intonational Phonology

This study is a preliminary report of ongoing research investigating an Autosegmental-Metrical model of the intonational phonology of Kazan Tatar, a Turkic language spoken in Tatarstan, Russia. Tonal patterns of neutral focus utterances were examined by varying the length of words and phrases, the location of stresses, syntactic structures, and sentence types. Results suggest that Tatar has two prosodic units marked by intonation. They are the Intermediate Phrase (ip), and the Intonational Phrase (IP). The stressed syllable of a prominent word is marked with a post-lexical pitch accent, L+H*, which can be realized as H* or L* due to prosodic or tonal contexts. Interestingly, an optional high tone (Hi) can be realized on the initial syllable of a word which does not carry a pitch accent, and this tone can be the only tone in an ip. An ip is marked by a phrase-final boundary tone, H- or L-, realized on an ip-final syllable, which is accompanied by a small degree of final lengthening. Finally, an IP is marked by a phrase-final boundary tone, H% or L%, realized on a substantially lengthened IP-final syllable. This intonation model of Tatar is compared with the intonation model of Turkish and the status of a “head”-less ip is discussed.