1. Introduction

Second language (L2) learners often follow the rules and patterns of their native or first language (L1) during speaking L2. Odlin (1989) and Ellis (1999) assume that L2 presentation and performance is highly affected by learner’s L1 and patterns and rules are carried over from L1 to L2. Linguists such as Weinreich (1953), Lado (1957) and Flynn and O’Neil (1988) consider this phenomenon as transfer or interference. There are two types of transfer: positive and negative. In the former, L1 transfer enhances the acquisition of L2 because the same linguistic elements are present in both languages. In the latter, it has interfering effects due to the differences between linguistic elements of both languages L1 and L2. This is also referred to as interference (Van Coetsem, 1988). The word transfer is used in this paper.

Transfer occurs among segmental and suprasegmental levels during producing English as a second language. Suprasegmentals play more important role than segmentals, and are also more difficult in the acquisition of L2’s phonology (Anderson-Hsieh et al. 1992 and Trofimovitch & Baker 2006). The effect of L1 prosodic characteristics on the L2 speech system is referred to as prosodic transfer (Ueyama, 2000). Within phonology, little studies have been conducted on the transferring effects upon the acquisition of L2 prosodic characteristics (White 1981; Mennen 2006 and Raiser & Hiligsmann, 2007). Most research studies on the L2 phonology deals with the segmental level such as individual vowels and consonants (Flege & Eefting 1987; Flege & Port 1987; James 1988). A number of studies, however, examined the transfer of different prosodic features by L2 learners of English from different L1 linguistic backgrounds, that is, the influence of pitch accent, and phonemic length contrasts on English by Ueyama (2000), transfer of stress, tone and intonation from Mandarin by Chow (2016), transfer of speech rhythm by Korean learners of English by Kim (2017).

One of the common suprasegmental characteristics that undergoes transfer process is word stress. It is thought that word stress is the most problematic feature of English for foreign learners, especially for the learners who have different stress patterns in their L1, as it has a great impact on the learners’ pronunciation (Celce-Murcia et al., 1996). L1 word stress affects English as L2, therefore, it is studied by different researchers from different L1 backgrounds, for example from Persian (Vafaei et al., 2013), from Arabic (Almbark et al., 2014) and from Chinese (Bian, 2013). Also, the stress shift of English utterances by Indonesian English speakers is also examined by Arienintya (2017) and Mulya and Mujiyanto (2018).

Kurdish is an independent language that has its own history, grammatical system and vocabularies like any other languages in the world (Khorshid, 1983). Kurdish is divided into several dialects, namely North, Middle, South Kurmanji and Gorani (Khorshid, 1983). This study deals with Bahdini Kurdish, a subdialect of North Kurmanji, which is spoken in Iraq (Thackston, 2006).

Concerning stress assignment rules in English and Kurdish, BK has fixed word stress in that it is placed on the final syllable of all types of words (Shokri, 2002; Mosa, 2009; Hasan, 2016; Abdullah & Ali, 2019). While the word stress is variable and unpredictable in English. That is, it falls on different parts of the words depending on the word itself. Thus, it needs to be memorized as there are no certain rules and patterns for placing it (McMahon, 2002 and Zsiga, 2013). That is to say, Kurdish and English are representatives of two broadly contrastive stress patterns. This study seeks to investigate whether these differences influence the stress production of English by BK learners. The studies on the production of English word stress by foreign learners, further, have two main viewpoints. A number of them (e.g., Archibald, 1993; Ueyama, 2000; Bian, 2013) assume that the learners transfer their L1’s patterns into English. Whereas some others (e.g., Vafaei et al., 2013; Arienintya 2017) came out with the fact that the foreign learners of English do not usually learn stress system of English, thus, they encounter problems in producing the English words. That is to say, they mostly could not identify word stress and are not able to control it.

To the best of our knowledge, no studies have closely examined the effect of Kurdish stress features on Kurdish-speaking learners of English. Thus, this study attempts to fill this gap by exploring word stress acquisition by BK learners of English. In other words, whether L1 BK learners of L2 English realize stress in a native-like way phonologically (stress placement in a word). Besides, it aims to show to what extent do BK learners of English transfer their L1 habits to their L2. The following questions, however, will be answered through this study:

1. Do BK learners acquire word stress correctly?

2. Do BK learners of English place stress on the correct syllable of the words? i.e. they realize it in native-like or non-native-like way?

3. Does the stress pattern of Kurdish words affect the production of English words stress? And to what extent do they transfer their L1 stress patterns to their L2.

The study, moreover, predicts that BK learners would have difficulties in acquiring English stress and that there would be L1 influence. The hypothesis, therefore, is that L2 English learners will not be able to realize stress in native-like way and there will be an L1 transfer.

Furthermore, this study is important as it will help to identify the nature of BK learners of English word stress acquisition and the way L1 affects its realization. Additionally, a solid description of prosodic transfer phenomena is necessary if we are to validly assess how L1 characteristics affect the learning process of L2 pronunciation.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Stress

Stress is defined and described differently in terms of production and perception. According to Fox (2000), ancient phoneticians (like Sweet 1906, Jespersen 1913, Stetson 1928, Fonagy 1958, Jones 1967 and Catford 1977) have viewed stress as fundamentally physiological. Other phoneticians such as Newman (1946) and Roach (2000) attempted to describe stress from the production point of view. They explain stress based on force and associates it with the internal intercostal muscles activity and emphasizing on the speakers’ role and activity. That is to say, more physical energy is used in pronouncing stressed syllables, i.e. muscular energy is the articulatory feature of stressed elements as Newman (1946) claims that “force of articulation is the primary medium through which the stress phonemes are externalized” (p. 171).

At the level of perception, on the other hand, the stressed syllables are more salient and prominent, this is due to the combination of pitch, length and loudness. Thus, stressed elements are heard with higher pitch, longer and louder than unstressed ones (Katamba, 1989; McMahon, 2002; Skandera & Burleigh, 2005; Gut, 2009). Zsiga (2013: p. 354) describes stress as “a prominence relation between syllables”. To indicate stress in transcription, the special IPA diacritic – superscripted line ( ' ) – is placed at the beginning of the stressed syllables (Katamba, 1989; Ladefoged & Johnson, 2010; Zsiga, 2013).

Scholars classify the languages that use stress into two classes, depending on stress placement: the fixed and free stressed languages. In fixed stressed languages, the stress is always placed on the same syllable i.e. always the initial syllable is stressed or medial or final. For example, in Czech, Hungarian and Georgian, stress always falls on the initial syllable in the words; whereas, in French, the last syllable always takes stress. In free stressed languages including Russian, English and German, the stress is variable, i.e., its position is not predictable; it falls on different parts of the words depending on the word itself. Thus, stress placement needs to be memorized as there are no certain rules and patterns for placing it (Reetz & Jongman, 2009; Zsiga, 2013).

In terms of functions, the stress has generally different functions in different languages. In some languages, such as Russian, stress is contrastive, i.e., the meaning of words changes due to changes in stress position. For example, the Russian word ‘muka’ means “torment” if the first syllable is stressed, but when the stress falls on the second syllable, it means “flour” (Zsiga, 2013). In English, on the other hand, stress is used for grammatical and lexical purposes. That is, many nouns and verbs can be differentiated by the distinctions in their stress position. For example, the following pairs of words are grammatically distinctive due to the differences in stress position: insult, export, record, convert and export are nouns when stress falls on the first syllable and verbs when it falls on the second syllable (Ladefoged & Disner, 2012). In Kurdish, stress causes the changes in meaning: 'sayran (you sayran), say'ran (picnic), as well as in grammatical function of the words, for example “nivistin” (sleeping) and “firin” (flying) are nouns when the last syllable stressed and verbs when the first syllable is stressed (Hasan, 2016; Abdullah & Ali, 2019).

2.1.1 English Stress

English has a complex stress system that is unpredictable and considered as mixture of both free and fixed systems. There are no certain rules and patterns to be followed, as McMahon (2002: p. 118) states that “native speakers of English are intuitively aware that certain syllables in each word will be more phonetically prominent than the others”. Gut (2009: p. 84) claims that “speakers of English have a mental representation of word stress”, while Knight (2012: p. 110) adds that “every word has a stress pattern as part of its entry in our mental lexicon”. According to these interpretations, the knowledge about stress placement in words is intuitive; native speakers of English learn how to use stress when acquiring the words. Thus, stress is part of language acquisition in free stressed languages.

With regard to fixed stressed system, English has some rules depending on the syllable weight – whether they are heavy (they contain either a long vowel or diphthong or a short vowel with coda) or light (they consist of a short vowel or no coda) – and words’ grammatical function. In verbs, for example, the stress falls on the final syllable, in cases when the final syllable is heavy, i.e., counting the syllables from the end of the words (from right hand), and put the stress on the first heavy syllable for instance: obey, atone, and produce. Furthermore, if the final syllable is light, the stress falls on the previous syllable, by default, as in ‘hurry’. In nouns, the stress falls on the first syllable, as long as it is heavy. That is, counting starts from the left hand for the nouns. Thus, if the first syllable is light the second one takes stress and the rule continues like this, for instance: aroma, agenda, discipline, etc. (Katamba, 1989; McMahon, 2002; Zsiga, 2013). Elaborating more on this concept, Katamba (1989) discusses some more rules for stress such as: grammatical words like conjunctions and prepositions do not take primary stress (except of some long words like ‘underneath, notwithstanding’) and only one syllable takes primary stress in lexical words. Besides, he admits that there are exceptions within the stress rules in English – such as ‘spaghetti’, the stress assigns on the second syllable ‘ghe’, in spite of being light – that makes it difficult to be wholly described. Besides, the English stress is said to be mobile with variability. This means that stress can be shifted onto different syllables. This can be illustrated in the words that are morphologically related, for instance: in the word ‘democrat’, the first syllable is stressed and in ‘democracy’, by adding the suffix ‘cy’, the stress shifts to the second syllable, while in ‘democratic’ the stress shifts on third syllable by adding suffix ‘ic’ (YavaȘ , 2011).

With regard to levels of stress, in spite of having some other impressions by having almost five levels, it is widely accepted that two levels are recognized in English words, namely primary and secondary stress, in addition to no stressed syllables. The most prominent syllable takes the primary stress and the less prominent one takes the secondary stress (Quirk et al., 1972; Ladefoged & Johnson, 2010; Low, 2015). Vowel quality is a particular aspect that should be explained in studying English stress. Stressed syllables contain strong vowels (the vowels that have their full original quality), however, they can contain any type of vowel (monophthong or diphthong) except schwa /ə/. On the other hand, unstressed syllables contain weak vowels (a vowel that is produced by a reduction or that occurs only in unstressed environment such as /ə/, /i/ and /u/, and the syllabic consonants). That is, vowels are reduced or weakened in unstressed syllables, the /æ/ in land /lænd/, for instance, remains an /æ/ in landing /lændɪŋ/as it is in stressed syllable, while it is reduced to /ə/ in unstressed syllable in England /ɪŋglənd/ (McMahon, 2002; Skandera & Burleigh, 2005; Zsiga, 2013).

2.1.2 Kurdish Stress

Kurdish stress system is said to be uncomplicated. Generally, the final syllable is stressed in words, without any effect of vowel quality, for instance: ziman /zi'mɑːn/ (language), fermanber /faɾm'baɾ/ (employee) and gazinde /gɑːzin'da/ (complaint) are all stressed finally (Shokri, 2002; Abdullah & Ali, 2019). Mosa (2009), however, claims that in order to describe Kurdish word stress, the component of the word, its type and form need to be taken into account. He classifies stress on the basis of the types of words, whether they are simple, complex or compound. In simple and compound words the stress always falls on the final syllable: zana /zɑː'nɑː/ (scientist\scholar), birsÎ /biɾ'siː/ (hungry), sulêmanÎ /suleːmɑː'niː/ (name of a city), merdemêr /maɾda'meːɾ/ (generous man) and Mêrgesor /meːɾga'sor/ (name of a village). Complex words, on the other hand, are divided into two types based on the type of the attached suffixes. According to Mosa (2009) and Ahmed (1986), some suffixes do not take stress so the penultimate syllable is stressed in the word rather than the final. For example, the suffixes associated with:

o Gender markers ‘î’ and ‘ê’ for masculine and feminine respectively as in Azadî (name of a boy) /ɑːˈz(namː/ Cihanê /ʤiːˈhɑːneː/ (name of a girl).

o Possessive morphemes ‘ê’ for masculine and ‘a’ for feminine as in korêmin /koˈreːmin/ (my son), kiÇame /kiˈʧɑːma/ (our daughter)

o Indefinite markers ‘ek or yek’ as in şêrek /ˈʃeːɾak/ (one lion).

On the other hand, in most of the complex words the stress falls on the final syllable. That means the suffixes bear the stress (Qadir, 1983 and Mosa, 2009):

o Suffixes added to adjectives to form the comparative and superlative, e.g., ‘tir’ in paqijtir /pɑːqiʃˈtiɾ/ (cleaner), and ‘trin’ in paqijtrin /pɑːqiʃtiˈɾiːn/ (cleanest).

o Suffixes added to nouns to form plural, e.g., ‘an’ in jinan /ʒinˈɑːn/ (women), and ‘a’ in Çava /ʧɑːˈvɑː/ (eyes).

o Suffixes that form nouns, e.g., ‘î’ in canî /ʤɑːˈniː/ (beauty), ‘van’ in nêÇirvan /neːʧiːɾˈvɑːn/ (hunter), and ‘wer’ in dadwer /dɑːdˈwar / (judge).

o Suffixes forming adjectives, e.g., ‘baz’ in fêlbaz /feːlˈbɑːz/ (deceiver), ‘dar’ in sinordar /sinoɾˈdɑːɾ/ (limited), and ‘î’ in mirî /miˈɾiː/(dead).

Apart from these, Hasan (2016) proposes that the phonological words (PW) are the domain of stress in BK and stress is placed on the final syllable of the phonological words cyclically. That means, stress applies after all the morphological operations have taken place, for example: ˈgran (expensive), granˈtir (more expensive), grantirˈîn (most expensive). She also states that only one element in the PW bear stress; the parts that cannot take stress are not counted as separate PWs, i.e., they are joined into single PW, for example: clitics and first elements of compounds. In verb phrases, however, some elements are treated as distinct PWs due to bearing stress such as: preverbs and prefixes. PWs in BK are larger than grammatical words and have multiple structures (Hasan, 2016).

Two levels of stress are recognized in BK, primary and secondary. Mono-syllabic Kurdish words have one primary stress. Moreover, in words with more than one syllable, only one syllable takes primary stress and another one takes the secondary stress and all other syllables are unstressed (Mosa, 2009).

Consequently, some similarities and differences can be realized between English and Kurdish stress. The stress placement is variable in English, i.e., it can fall on different syllables of the words. Whereas, the stress placement in Kurdish is fixed, considered to be placed on the final syllable of a word. Kurdish and English, nevertheless, are similar concerning the stress levels. In both languages, the two primary and secondary stress levels can be recognized in producing words in isolation. Stress is also contrastive in both languages. That is, stress shift is used to indicate lexical distinctions in meaning and grammatical category as well.

2.2 Acquisition of L2 Stress

Several studies (e.g., James, 1988; Flege & Bohn, 1989; Archibald, 1994; Kim, 2017) came with the fact that acquiring English stress patterns is fundamentally difficult for L2 learners, especially those who have different prosodic features and stress patterns in their L1. L2 learners place stress in accordance with the L1 stress assignment guidelines (Archibald, 1994). L2 learners, in addition, need to acquire stress-timed patterns, especially the ones that have different rhythmic pattern, in order to be in control of English stress. Besides, they encounter complex set of regularities on stress assignment when both languages are different in the stress levels, as English is regarded as having two levels: primary and secondary (Flege & Bohn, 1989). L2 learners, however, could take advantages from the similarities and differences between both languages, their L1 and L2, to master the correct forms and grasp basic information about the target language and practice on them (Ma & Tan, 2013). Shumin (1997) and Tangtorrith & Pongpairoj (2022) report that supra-segmental features like stress and intonation cannot be learned through reading textbooks or dictionaries. They are rather required through language input, i.e., the larger amount of comprehensible input L2 learners receive, the more productive they become. They also mention that adult learners might not have many opportunities to be exposed to native target language input and communicate with native speakers; thus they often face challenges during learning L2, especially pronunciation.

2.3 Prosodic Transfer

The effect of L1 prosodic characteristics on the L2 speech system is referred to as prosodic transfer (Ueyama, 2000). It is thought that L1 transfer is an important factor in L2 prosody learning at both levels, production and perception (Ueyama, 2000 and Raiser & Hiligsman, 2007). It can also take the form of phonological and phonetic transfer (Mennen, 2006). Felix (1980), moreover, assumes that L1 phonology, in general, highly influences L2 phonology and L2 learners’ phonological level begins with learners L1 system. On the acquisition of L2 prosody, most of the studies (Archibald, 1994; Ueyama, 2000; Rasier & Hiligsman, 2007 and Kim, 2017) indicate that L2 learners tend to import L1 prosodic features into their L2.

Studies on L2 prosody indicate that different prosodic characteristics are transferred from L1 to L2. Learners from two different stress patterns, for instance, transfer their L1 stress patterns into L2. English speakers from Poland usually stress on the penultimate syllable of the word as similar to polish stress pattern. Hungarian speakers of English, besides, place stress on the initial syllable of English words (Archibald, 1994). In addition, learners from tone languages, such as Chinese (Bian, 2013) and Vietnamese (Thu Nguyen, 2003), in the production of English, a stress language, tend to introduce tone patterns, as they are used in their native language, into English stress patterns. It seems that they treat stress as part of the phonological representation of words similar as treated in their L1. The difference in timing between languages is also attributed to prosodic transfer. Studies on timing (Anderson-Hsieh & Venkatagiri, 1994 for Chinese and Ueyama, 2000 for Japanese) found that learners from syllable- timed or mora-timed languages failed to acquire patterns of stressed languages, English as stress- timed language, due to the effect of their L1. Kim (2017) on the transfer of speech rhythm noted that Korean-speaking English learners transfer patterns from Korean to English. In dealing with prosodic features, the investigation of the current study is limited to word stress patterns, i.e., without taking other prosodic features into account. This study, also, focuses on the production of stress, not perception.

2.3. Previous Studies on the Influence of L1 on L2 in the Production of English Word Stress

Previous studies agree that L1 has a central role in the production of English word stress, investigating the learners’ production from different aspects. For example, Khamkhein (2010) examined the Thai learners’ knowledge concerning English stress assignment. The study was based on a test consisted of 40 multisyllabic words. The participants were 90 English learners from different scientific departments from Kasetsart University in Thailand. The test was given to the participants and asked to identify stress by marking X next to the syllables that they believe to be stressed. The results showed that the learners were more successful in marking stress on the words with less number of syllables as the highest score of correct answer was for two-syllable words and the lowest score for five-syllable words. Jaiprasong and Pongpairoj (2020) additionally investigated Thai learners’ production of English complex and compound words. The study was based on two production tests: producing English words in isolation and producing them in sentences. Twenty university students produced the words. The results revealed that negative transfer was caused due to the different stress assignment rules of both languages and L1 rules interfere with L2 Thai learners’ acquisition of English word stress. Accordingly, correct production of English word stress is due to the effect of memorization of the words.

Furthermore, Vafaei et al. (2013) examined the production of stress pattern of Iranian learners of English by asking 30 learners studying in an English institute in Tahran to read 80 English words. The participants’ production was recorded and listened to find out the stressed syllables. The results showed that the participants’ performance was against stress patterns in Persian that they were more successful in pronouncing the words with stress on the first syllable in comparison to those when the stress was on the second syllable. The study concluded that Iranian learners did not transfer stress patterns from their L1 to their L2 but they did not acquire stress properly.

In addition, Weda (2012) examined the understanding of words stress assignment by Indonesian learners of English. The participants were 27 first-year university students, studying at the Department of English language and literature. He used a test that contained a list of 48 words, ranging from one syllable to five. The results showed that the participants failed to identify stress in all types of simple words and complex words with suffixes. In contrast, they did not have difficulties in identifying stress in complex words with prefixes. The researcher suggested that the English learners were unaware of the patterns of English stress.

Besides, Arienintya (2017) and Mulya and Mujiyanto (2018) explored the English pronunciation of Indonesian learners by focusing on the effect of stress patterns. Both studies were based on experimental tests. Thirty university students participated in the first study and 38 tenth grade students in the second one. Arienintya (2017) found that the participants were bad in pronunciation and that they were unaware of English pronunciation and stress rules. Mispronunciation and stress shifts caused by participants were due to the effect of their L1 on L2. Mulya and Mujiyanto (2018), on their part, divided the results into different categories: words that are strongly influenced by L1 and the words that were not strongly influenced by L1. The researchers, further, suggested that correct stress placement does not mean that their L1 give positive transfer and incorrect stress placement give negative transfer to English. They also noted that learners place stress on the syllable they feel it straightforward to be pronounced.

In addition, Bian (2013) investigated the influence of Chinese on English stress. The study was based on two tests: the first one consisted of 10 words that was given to 10 university students to produce, and the second one consisted of 20 compounds given to university and school students to mark stress. The results showed that the Chinese learners have difficulty in acquiring English word stress because of their L1 influence and they frequently place stress on the final syllable of English words as similar to their L1.

Alzi'abi (2022) and Sa'di et al. (2022), likewise, observed the role of Arabic on English stress assignment produced by Arab learners of English. Both studies were based on reading tests: the first one contained 72 words that were given to 130 Jordanian university students and the second one consisted of 50 words given to 120 Saudi university students. The results showed that Arab learners failed to correctly place stress on English words and Arabic stress patterns influenced the learners’ production of English. Sa'di et al. (2022) also reported that misplacements were accompanied by one or more vowels being changed in the words and the stress placement in a number of words was vague, since no syllable was given any acoustic prominence over others. Alzi'abi (2022) further suggested that misplacements of stress are due to the effect of the learners’ L1 and lack of appropriate knowledge and training in stress rules of compounds as the participants placed stress on the second element more often.

Although all the researches mentioned above focused on the effect of learners’ L1, they determined that different factors affect the learners’ performance of word stress. That is, several similarities and differences were noted among these studies. A number of studies (Bian, 2013; Jaiprasong & Pongpairoj, 2020 and Tangtorrith & Pongpairoj, 2022), for instance, described transfer of L1 patterns as the main factor. Some others (Khamkhein 2010; Vafaei et al. 2013; Weda 2018) described different factors, as it is determined through their results, such as having problems in the acquisition of English stress patterns and they referred this back to having a gap in learning the English stress patterns and pronunciation. While some others (Arienintya, 2017 & Mulya & Mujiyanto, 2018; Alzi'abi, 2022 and Sa'di et al., 2022) claimed that the learners’ misplacement of stress were under the effect of transfer as well as the lack of knowledge about stress patterns of English. Observation on the factors that affect the performance of BK learners of English is quite rare. This research hence is an attempt to determine these factors.

3. Methodology

3.1 Speech Material

To examine the effect of Kurdish on English word stress production, by BK learners, an experiment is carried out. The experiment is based on the production of a set of English words – with different morphological structures, different parts of speech and different stress patterns. The majority of the selected words are taken from Roach (2009) and some from Smith and Margolis (2012) and few from an online Oxford Dictionary. The particular reason for this is the existence of native speakers’ pronunciation of all the examples in these sources.

The test words are divided into three groups, on the basis of their morphological structure: simple, compound and complex. This is because of the effect of English morphology on its stress assignment (Katamba, 1989; Roach 2009). Besides, the grammatical function of the words (whether they are nouns, verbs, adjectives or adverbs) has a great effect on the stress placement of the words. The final syllable of the verbs, adjectives and adverbs are more likely to be stressed while in nouns the stress falls on the syllables nearer the beginning of the words, yet there are some exceptions depending on the syllable weight and vowel quality (Roach, 2009 and Gut, 2009). Therefore, the words used in this experiment vary in their grammatical function as well.

a. Simple words:

According to Roach (2009), simple words consist of only one grammatical unit. Twenty-two simple words are selected for the test; they are from different parts of speech, different number of syllables and different stress patterns. They are listed in Table 1:

The table shows that the mean average of correct stress placement is less than the correct one indicating that the participants failed to produce English stress correctly. Compound words have the lowest correct rate 31.38% and complexes have the highest by reaching 42%. The table also shows that the difference between both rates correct and incorrect is considered to be very statistically significant (p<0.0064).

Regarding whether the learners acquired word stress correctly and whether they realized word stress in native-like or non-native-like way, the results indicated that word stress is not learned properly and that the learners were not able to realize word stress in native-like way as most of the learners placed stress on wrong syllables in all types of words. The results suggest that some other factors distribute misplacement of stress such as lack of appropriate (native-like) pronunciation of single phonemes (especially vowels) syllables and whole words as well. The participants, in some cases, lengthened the end of the words and made it melodic. Besides, they made pauses between parts of words, regarding complex and compound. They also pronounced some words as they are written. Mohammadi (2014), in analyzing errors of BK learners of English, likewise, declare that most common errors committed by the subjects in his study were pronunciation errors. Mulya and Mujiyanto’s (2018), Ma and Tan (2013) and Sa'di et al. (2022) also reported that mispronunciation of words and parts of words contribute the misplacement of stress. A number of participants, however, produced several words with two primary stresses, while some others without putting primary stress as no syllable is more prominent than others. It is clear from these results that the learners did not acquire English stress patterns properly. Findings of Vafaei et al. (2013) and Arienintya (2017) support this claim, as they stated that lack of knowledge about English stress patterns is the main factor that results in stress misplacements.

Despite the fact that the influence of Kurdish stress patterns can be realized in learners’ production of English, they did not transfer their L1 patterns into their L2 production. That is, they did not put stress on the final syllable of all the English words. The results of several previous studies are consistent with these findings. Vafaei et al. (2013), Arienintya (2017) and Weda (2018) claimed that the learners could not transfer all the learned habits of L1 to English but they have not learned English stress system, thus, they encounter problems in pronunciation. However, the results of a number of studies (e.g., Bian, 2013; Jaiprasong & Pongpairoj, 2020 and Tangtorrith & Pongpairoj, 2022) did not go with these results.

Thus, the hypothesis that L2 English learners will not be able to realize stress in native-like way is confirmed while the hypothesis that there will be an L1 transfer is rejected. The learners were unable to place stress on the correct syllable in English words as a result their performance was target-like. In addition, it cannot be claimed that the incorrect production of the learners was due to negative transfer or strong influence of their L1 stress rules because transfer was not realized clearly in the learners’ performance and they did not follow their L1 strategies. That is, if transfer occurred, the learners would place stress on the final syllable of the words as it is the pattern in their L1. Besides, if there is positive transfer, the participants would be more successful in producing the words whose stress position corresponded to where it would appear in their L1. They rather put stress on different syllables of the words and all types of words were incorrectly produced including the ones with final syllable stressed.

5. Conclusion

The current study reached the conclusion that transfer was not the basic reason for incorrect stress position produced by second-year students from Department of English Language at University of Zakho. Misplacements rather caused by a number of additional factors such as having problems with acquisition of English stress system and pronunciation in general as they produced single sounds (especially vowels) and also syllables incorrectly. Incorrect syllable division is another factor that lead to stress misplacements of English words. That is, BK learners lengthened some syllables and shortened some others during producing the words, as a result, changes in stress placement occurred. We can conclude that, BK learners of English did not transfer their L1 habits, concerning stress placement, they rather pronounce the words the way they find it easier for them to be pronounced. The results also proved that whenever the stress was misplaced, it was not the same syllable that took primary stress. That is, all the learners did not place stress on the same wrong syllable they rather put stress on different wrong ones.

This study is helpful to fill a gap in the acquisition and production of English word stress by BK learners. It also helps to show the effect of learners’ L1 on their L2. The description of prosody is highly valuable in analyzing L1 characteristics that affect L2 pronunciation process. Thus, examining the effect of Kurdish language on other supra-segmental features is also a good topic for future investigations as this study focused on words stress only.

This study, moreover, concentrated on the learners’ stage not their English level. Thus, looking at students’ proficiency level is recommended to be observed in further studies to show whether there is a connection between learners’ level and their performance. Moreover, looking at English stress from other perspectives such as perception – how the learners perceive the rules and to what extent do they understand them, or applied linguistics – by taking teachers roles into account in acquiring English words stress, are also recommended for further studies since this study was based on the production of word stress by the learners without taking perception and teachers’ rules into account.

REFERENCES

- Abdullah,A.N. and Ali,S.S. (2019). Phonology. Hewler: Hivi.

- Ahmed, A. R. (1986). The Phonemic System of Modern Standard Kurdish. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis. University of Michigan.

- Almbark, R.; Bouchhioua, N. and Hellmuth, S. (2014). Acquiring the Phonetics and Phonology of English Word Stress: Comparing Learners from Different L1 Backgrounds. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Acquisition of second language speech, Concordia working papers in Applied Linguistics (Vol.5,pp.19-35.2014).

- Alzi'abi, S. E. (2022). Arab EFL Learners’ Stress of Compound Words. Research in Language, 20(1), 85-108. DOI: 10.18778/1731-7533.20.1.0.

- Anderson-Hsieh, J., Johnson, R., & Koehler, K. (1992). The relationship between native speaker judgments of nonnative pronunciation and deviance in segmentals, prosody, and syllable structure. Language Learning, 42(4), 529-555.

- Anderson-Hsieh, J. & H. Venkatagiri. (1994). Syllable duration and pausing in the speech of Chinese ESL speakers. TESOL Quarterly 28 (4), 807-812.

- Archibald, J. (1997). The acquisition of English stress by speakers of nonaccentual languages: Lexical storage versus computation of stress. Linguistics, 35, 167‐182.

- Arienintya, D. (2017). The influence of L1 and L2 in English stress shift production of the EFL learners in Indonesia. KNE Social Sciences, 482-488. http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/kss.v1i3.770.

- Bian, F. (2013). The Influence of Chinese Stress on English Pronunciation Teaching and Learning. English Language Teaching, 6(11), 199-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n11p199.

- Celce-Murcia,M., Brinton, D. & Goodwin,J. (1996). Teaching Pronunciation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

- Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6th ed.) London: Routledge.

- Chow, U. Y. (2016). L2 transfer of stress, tones and intonation from Mandarin: a case study. Calgary working papers in linguistics, 29, 19-40. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/51786.Ellis, R. (1999). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford university press.

- Felix, S. (1980). Interference, interlanguage and related issues. In S. Felix (ed.), Second language development. Trends and issues, 93-107.

- Flege, J. E. & Bohn, O. S. 1989. An Instrumental study of vowel reduction and stress placement in Spanish-Accented English. University of Alabama, Birmingham, SSLA. 11. 35-62.

- Flege, J. E. & Eefting, W. (1987). Production and perception of English stops by native Spanish learners. Journal of phonetics, 15, 67-83.

- Flege, J. E. & Port, R. (1981). Cross-language phonetic interference: Arabic to English. Language and speech, 24-2, 125-146.

- Flynn, S. and O'Neil. W. (1988). Linguistic theory in second language acquisition. Dordrecht: KAP.

- Fox, A. (2000). Prosodic Features and Prosodic Structure: The phonology of Suprasegmentals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- Gut, U. (2009). Introduction to English phonetics and phonology. Textbooks in English language and linguistics: Volume1. Magnus Huber and joybrato mukherjii. Frankfurt: Peterlang. https://www.pdfdrive.com/introduction-to-english-phonetics-and-phonology-e39993559.html

- Hasan, A. M. (2016). The phonological word and stress-shift in Northern Kurmanji Kurdish. European Scientific Journal, Vol. 12, No. 26, pp 371-399. Available at http://www.eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/8082

- Jaiprasong, S., & Pongpairoj, N. (2020). L2 production of English word stress by L1 Thai learners. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network,13(2),142-157. https://so04.tcithaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/download/243699/165594

- James, A. (1988), The acquisition of a second language phonology. A linguistic theory of developing sound structures. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.

- Katamba, F. (1989). An introduction to phonology. Essex, England: Longman.

- Khamkhien, A. (2010). Thai learners’ English pronunciation competence: Lesson learned from word stress assignment. Journal of language teaching and research,1(6),757-764. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/47033296/Thai_Learners_English_

- Kim, J. M. (2017). Prosodic transfer of speech rhythm: Substituting fundamental frequency for vowel duration in Korean learners’ English speech. Studies in English Language and Literature, 43(4), 181-203. http://www.aellk.or.kr/datax/thesis/1602568391.pdf

- Knight, R-A.(2012). Phonetics: A coursebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

- Ladefoged,P. and Disner, S.F. (2012). Vowels and consonants (3^rd ed). Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell.

- Lieber, R. (2016). Introducing morphology (2^nd ed.). Cambridge: CUP.

- Ladefoged, P., & Johnson. (2010). A course in phonetics (6th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth Cengage.

- Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan press.

- Low, E.L. (2015). Pronunciation for English as an international language: from research to practice. London: Routledge.

- Ma, C., & Tan, L. (2013). The Negative Transfer of Sichuan Dialect to the Study of English Pronunciation. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), 1-4. DOI:10.4236/jss.2013.11001

- Major, R. (2011). Foreign accent: the ontogency and phylogency of second language phonology. London: LEA.

- McMahon, A (2002). An Introduction to English Phonology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

- Mennen, I. (2006). Phonetic and phonological influences in non-native intonation: an overview for language teachers. QMUC Speech Sciences Research Centre Working papers – Edinburgh: Queen Margaret University College.

- Mohammadi, J. (2014). A survey of Kurdish students’ sound segment & syllabic pattern errors in the course of learning EFL. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 5(3), 18-21. http://journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/alls/article/viewFile/353/295 .

- Mosa, A. K. (2009). Hêz u awaze le diyaliktî kurdî jûrûda (Stress and Intonation in Northern Kurmanji). Hewler: Kurdish Academy Press.

- Mulya, D., & Mujiyanto, J. (2018). The Influence of Serawai Melayunese Dialect Towards Students English Pronunciation. English Education Journal, 8(3), 290-

- Newman, S. S. (1946). On the Stress System of English. WORD. Vol. 2 :3, 171-187, DOI: 10.1080/00437956.1946.11659290.

- Nguyen, T. (2003). Prosodic transfer: The tonal constraints on Vietnamese acquisition of English stress and rhythm (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Queensland).https://www.researchgate.net/publication/34966411_Prosodic_transfer_the_tonal_constraints_of_Vietnamese_acquisition_of_English_stress_rhythm

- Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Crosslinguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: CUP

- Oxford dictionary. V. 15.4.301. 2022. https://apps.apple.com/app/id978674211

- Qadir, S. (1983). The Phonology and Phonetics of Kurdish. Unpublished MA Thesis. University of Essex.

- Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman

- Rasier, L. and Hiligsmann, P. (2007). Prosodic transfer from L1 to L2. Theoretical and methodological issues. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française 28, 41-66. https://clf.unige.ch/files/9814/4102/7519/03-Rasier_nclf28.pdf

- Reetz, H. and Jongman,A. (2009). Phonetics: transcription, production, acoustics, and perception. Sussex , England: Willey-Blackwell.

- Roach, P. (2009). English Phonetics and Phonology: A practical course.(4^th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

- Roach, P. (2000). English Phonetics and Phonology. A practical Course. (3rd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

- Sa'di, R., Sharadgah, T., & Yaseen, M. (2022). Stress Misassignment in the Pronunciation of English by Arabic-Speaking Learners: Erratic Practice or Crosslinguistic Influence. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies, 22(1), 79-100. https://doi.org/10.33806/ijaes2000.22.1.5

- Shokri, N. (2002). Syllable structure and stress in Bahdinani Kurdish, language typology and universals, Vol 55, No 1. In Geoffrey Haig and Yaron Matras's Kurdish Linguistics. pp. 80-97.

- Shumin, K. (1997). Factors to consider: developing adult EFL students’ speaking abilities. Forum 25 (3), 8.

- Smith, J. & Margolis, A. (2012). English for academic study: Pronunciation. University of Reading, UK: Garnet.

- Skandera,P and Burleigh,P. 2005. A Manual of English Phonetics and Phonology: twelve Lessons with an Integrated Course in Phonetic Transcription. Gunter Narr: Tubingen.

- Stageberg,N. (1981). An Introductory English Grammar (4th ed.). Florida: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

- Tangtorrith, N., & Pongpairoj, N. (2022). Systematicity of L2 interlanguage of stress assignment in English compound nouns and phrasal verbs by L1 Thai learners. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 15(1), 33- 63.

- Trofimovitch, P. & Baker, W (2006), Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effects of L1 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in second language acquisition: 28-1, 1-30.

- Ueyama, M. (2000). Prosodic transfer: An acoustic study of L2 English vs. L2 Japanese. University of California, Los Angeles. http://phonetics.linguistics.ucla.edu/research/ueyama.pdf

- Van Coetsem, F. (1988). Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris.

- Vafaei, L., Sadeghpour, M., & Hassani, M. T. (2013). The effect of stress pattern on Iranian English language learners' pronunciation. International Journal of English Language Education, 1(3), 198-207. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijele.v1i3.4011

- Weda, S. (2012). Stress shifts of English utterances made by Indonesian speakers of English (ISE). International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(4), 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n4p23

- Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.

- White, C.M. (1981). Mandarin tone and English intonation: a contrastive analysis. University Libraries, University of Arizona. https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/557400/AZU_TD

- YavaȘ, M.(2011). Applied English phonology (2^nd ed.). Willey black.

- Zsiga,E. (2013). The sounds of language: an introduction to phonetics and phonology. Sussex, England: Wiley-Black

Appendix 1: Kurdish transliteration

Arabic	BK Latin	IPA Sound	Example	Meaning
ا	A	/ɑː/	Azadî /ɑːˈz /ɑːː/	(name of a boy)
ب	B	/b/	bîr /biːr/	(well)
ج	C	/ʤ/	Cihan /ʤiːˈhɑːn/	(name of a girl).
چ	Ç	/ʧ/	çava /ʧɑːˈvɑː/	(eyes)
د	D	/d/	dadwer /dɑːdˈwar /	(judge)
ه	E	/a/	ez /az/	(I)
ێ	Ê	/eː /	êvar /eːvɑːr/	(evening)
ف	F	/f/	freh /frah/	(wide)
گ	G	/g/	germ /garm/	(hot)
ﻫ	H	/h/	helat /halɑːt/	(sunrise)
ح	Ḧ	/ħ/	ḧemîd /ħamiːd/	(name of a person)
ي	Î	/iː/	îmarat /iːmɑːrɑːt/	(Emirates)
not written	I	/i/	dil /dil/	(heart)
ژ	J	/ʒ/	jiyan /ʒijɑːn/	(life)
ك	K	/k/	kew /kaw/	(dove)
ل	L	/l/	leŝ /laʃ/	(body)
ڵ	L'	/ ɫ /	sal' /sɑːɫ/	(year)
م	M	/m/	mam /mɑːm/	(uncle)
ن	N	/n/	nan /nɑːn	(bread)
ۆ	O	/o/	roĵ /roʒ/	(day)
پ	P	/p/	pîr /piːr/	(old)
ق	Q	/q/	qela /qalɑː/	(castle)
ر	R	/ɾ/	bira /biɾɑː/	(brother)
ڕ	R'	/r/	r'ast /rɑːst/	(right)
س	S	/s/	ser /sar/	(head)
ش	Ş	/ʃ/	şans /ʃans/	(luck)
ط	Ţ	/ṭ/	ţa /ṭɑː/	(branch)
ت	T	/t/	te /ta/	(you)
و	U	/u/	Kurd /kurd/	(Kurd)
وو	Û	/uː/	bŭn /buːn/	(birth)
ڤ	V	/v/	viyan /vijɑːn/	(love)
و	W	/w/	war /wɑːr/	(home)
خ	X	/x/	xelk /xalk/	(people)
غ	Ẍ	/ɣ/	ẍem /ɣam/	(sadness)
ي	Y	/j/	yar /jɑːr/	(beloved)
ز	Z	/z/	zer /zar/	(yellow)
ع	E'	/ʕ/	e'ard /ʕard/	(land)

Appendix 2: Jury Members

No.	Name	Specialty	Academic title	Affiliation
1	Dr. Anmar Hammodi Saeed	Phonetics and Phonology	Assistant professor	University of Mosul
2	Dr. Asmaa Amin Hussein	Linguistics/ phonology	Lecturer	University of Duhok
3	Dr. Saeed Adris Saeed	Linguistics	Assistant professor	University of Duhok
4	Dr. Twana Saadi Hamid	Theoretical linguistics/ phonology	Assistant professor	University of Sulaimani

Appendix 3: Transcribers

No.	Name	Specialty	Academic title	Affiliation
1	Dr. Aveen Mohamad Hasan	Phonetics and phonology	Assistant professor	University of Zakho
2	Mr. Hozan Gorgeen Othman	Linguistics/ phonology	Assistant professor	University of Zakho

كاریگه‌رییا زمانێ ئێكێ لسه‌ر به‌رهه‌م ئینانا هێزا زمانێ ئینگلیزى ژلایێ فێرخازێن كوردێن به‌هدینى ڤه‌

پوخته‌:

ڤه‌كولینێن سه‌ره‌كى لسه‌ر فێربونا فونولوجیا زمانێ دووێ دهه‌ڤرانه‌ كو زمانێ ئێكێ روله‌كێ گرنگ هه‌یه‌ د فێربون و ب كارئینانا زمانێ دووێ دا. ئه‌ڤ ڤه‌كولینه‌ یێ هاتى ئه‌نجامدان لسه‌ر فێرخازێن زمانێ ئینگلیزى یێن كوردێن به‌هدینى دا كو لیكولینێ بكت لسه‌ر چه‌وانیا كاریگه‌رییا سالوخه‌تێن فونولوجى یێن هێزێ/سترێسێ یا په‌یڤا كوردى لسه‌ر هێزا په‌یڤا ئینگلیزى, ئه‌ڤه‌ د ده‌مه‌كێ دا كو جهێ هێزێ د هه‌ردوو زمانا دا ژێك جودانه‌. دهاته‌ پێشبینى كرن كو فێرخازێن كورد دێ توشى ئاسته‌نگا بن ل ده‌مێ فێربونا هێزا ئینگلیزى, هه‌روه‌سا ئه‌و دێ گه‌له‌ك جاران هێزێ ده‌ینن سه‌ر برگا دوماهیێ یا په‌یڤێن ئینگلیزى هه‌روه‌كى چه‌وا د زمانێ كوردى دا هێز دكه‌ڤیته‌ سه‌ر برگا دوماهیێ. 30 فێرخاز ژ فاكولتیا زانستێن مروڤایه‌تى پشكا زمانێ ئینگلیزى به‌شداربین دڤێ ڤه‌كولینێ دا. فێرخازێن پشكدار تاقیكرنا ده‌ربرینێ ئه‌نجامدان كو پێك دهات ژ خاندنا 48 په‌یڤێن ئینگلیزى یێن جیاواز د پولینا رێزمانى دا و جیاواز د جهێ هێزێ دا و جیاواز د پێكهاتنا مورفیمێ دا. ده‌ربرینێن وان هاتن توماركرن و گوهداریكرن وپاشان هاتن هنارتن بو دوو پسپورێن فونولوجى دا كو ب درستاهى جهێ هێزێ ئاماژه‌ پێ بدن دخاندنێن فێرخازان دا. ئه‌نجامان هوسا دا دیاركرن كو فێرخازێن كورد نه‌شیان هێزێ ده‌ینن سه‌ر برگا درست یا په‌یڤێن ئینگلیزى ژ هه‌مى جورا: یێن ساده‌ و دارشتى و لێكداى. زێده‌بارى هندێ, ڤه‌گوهێزا زمانى دخاندنا په‌یڤێن تاقیكرنێ دا رون و ئاشكرا نه‌ بى چونكى وان فێرخازا هێز نه‌ ده‌ینا سه‌ر برگا دوماهیێ یا په‌یڤێن ئینگلیزى. هه‌روه‌سا فێرخازین كورد د بێ ئاگه‌ه بین ژ یاسایێن هێزا ئینگلیزى و چه‌وانیا بكارئینانا وێ و ئه‌و گوتنا په‌یڤێن ئینگلیزى ب درستى فێرنه‌بینه‌.ئه‌نجامان دیاركر كو گوتنا خه‌له‌ت یا په‌یڤان و به‌شێن په‌یڤان و كیماسیا زانیارییا لسه‌ر یاسایێن هێزێ د ئینگلیزى دا هوكارێن سه‌ره‌كی یێن خه‌له‌ت ده‌ینانا هێزێ یه‌ لسه‌ر په‌یڤێن ئینگلیزى.

په‌یڤێن سه‌ره‌كى: فێرخازین ئینگلیزى یێن كوردێن به‌هدینى,كاریگه‌رییا زمانێ ئێكێ, به‌رهه‌م ئینانا هێزا په‌یڤێ.

تاثيراللغة الاولى على تعيين تشديد الكلمات الانكليزية من قبل متعلمي اللغة الانكليزية من الكورد المتكلمين للهجة البهدينية

ملخص:

تتفق الدراسات الر ئيسية التى اجريت حول تعلم النظام الصوتى للغة الثانية بان للغة الاولى دورا كبيرا في تعلم اللغة الثانية . اجريت الدراسة الحالية على متعلمي اللغة الانكليزية من الكورد المتكلمين للهجة البهدينية لبحث كيفية تاثير خصائص النظام الصوتي في اللغة الكوردية اللهجة البهدينية على نطق مقاطع الكلمة المشددة في اللغة الانكليزية اخذين بنظر الاعتبار الاختلافات الموجودة في اللغتين حول قواعد تشديد مواضع الكلمة. تم الافتراض في هذه الدراسة بان المتعلمين من الكورد سيواجهون تحديات اثناء تعلمهم كيفية تشديد الكلمة في اللغة الانكليزية وبانهم سيشددون المقطع الاخير من الكلمات الانكليزية والتى تشبه لغتهم الاولى. ولاجراء هذه الدراسة، تم اختيار 30 طالبا من قسم اللغة الانكيزية فى جامعة زاخو للمشاركة فى هذه الدراسة. اكمل المشتركون الاختبار الخاص بقراءة 48 كلمة تمثل انواع مختلفة من الكلمات النحوية والتى فيها مواضع مختلفة من التشديد وكذلك تراكيب صرفية مختلفة. وتم تسجيل قراءات الطلاب المشاركين في هذه الدراسة، وبعد ذلك تم الاستماع لهذه التسجيلات الصوتية و بعد ذلكتم بالارسالهم الى اثنين من الاساتذة المختصين في النظام الصوتي لبيان المواضع الصحيحة في تشديد مقاطع الكلمات اثناء قراءتهم لهذه الكلمات. بينت نتائج الدراسة بان متعلمي اللغة الانكليزية من الكورد لم يكونوا موفقين في كيفية وضع التشديد على المقاطع الصحيحة لكل انواع الكلمات النحوية الانكليزية المختلفة التى تضمنها الاختبار بضمنها الكلمات البسيطة والمعقدة والمركبة. وعلاوة على ذلك لم يكن تاثير اللغة الاولى واضحا على اداء المشاركين في الاختبار وبعبارة اخرى لم يضعوا التشديد على المقاطع النهائية في الكلمات. والاكثر من ذلك لم يكن لهولاء المشاركين في الاختبار الماما في قواعد تشديد مواضع الكلمة وكذلك تلفض الكلمات . من العوامل التى اثرت بشكل واضح على ادائهم الغير الموفق في وضع التشديد على كل الكلمات ومقاطعها هو التلفظ الخاطئ وعدم معرفتهم لقواعد وضع التشديد على الكلمات ومقاطعها.

الكلمات الدالة: متعلمي اللغة الانكليزية من الكورد المتكلمين للهجة البهدينية, تاثيراللغة الاولى, تعيين تشديد الكلمة.

* Corresponding Author.

This is an open access under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

Types of words	Words	Part of speech	Transcription	stress placement
Two syllables	product	Noun	ˈprɒdʌkt	1^st syllable
	equal	Verb	ˈiːkwəl	1^st syllable
	maintain	Verb	meɪnˈteɪn	2^nd syllable
	complete	adjective	kəmˈpliːt	2^nd syllable
Three syllables	monitor	noun	ˈmɒnɪtə	1^st syllable
	demonstrate	Verb	ˈdɛmənstreɪt	1^st syllable
	derelict	adjective	ˈdɛrɪlɪkt	1^st syllable
	abandon	Verb	əˈbændən	2^nd syllable
	determine	Verb	dɪˈtɜːmɪn	2^nd syllable
	enormous	adjective	ɪˈnɔːməs	2^nd syllable
	kangaroo	noun	ˌkæŋgəˈruː	3^rd syllable
	resurrect	Verb	ˌrɛzəˈrɛkt	3^rd syllable
	entertain	Verb	ˌɛntəˈteɪn	3^rd syllable
More than three syllables	alligator	Noun	ˈælɪgeɪtə	1^st syllable
	ordinary	adjective	ˈɔːdnri	1^st syllable
	kindergarten	Noun	ˈkɪndəˌgɑːtn	1^st syllable
	congratulate	Verb	kənˈgrætjʊleɪt	2^nd syllable
	identify	Verb	aɪˈdɛntɪfaɪ	2^nd syllable
	significant	adjective	sɪgˈnɪfɪkənt	2^nd syllable
	individual	adjective	ˌɪndɪˈvɪdjʊəl	3^rd syllable
	manufacture	noun	ˌmænjʊˈfækʧə	3^rd syllable
	anniversary	noun	ˌænɪˈvɜːsəri	3^rd syllable

Types of words	Cases	Words	Transcription
Words with prefixes	Prefixes	unpleasant	ʌnˈplɛznt
		rehouse	ˌriːˈhaʊs
		disbelieve	ˌdɪsbɪˈliːv
Words with suffixes	Stress-carrying suffixes	refugee	ˌrɛfjuˈʤiː
		journalese	ˌʤɜːnəˈliːz
		volunteer	ˌvɒlənˈtɪə
	Stress-moving suffixes	advantageous	ˌædvənˈteɪʤəs
		perfection	pəˈfɛkʃən
		Photography	fəˈtɒgrəfi
	Neutral suffixes	Comfortable	ˈkʌmfətəbl
		Powerless	ˈpaʊəlɪs
		Punishment	ˈpʌnɪʃmənt

Types of compound words based on stress position	Words	Transcription	Their grammatical function
First constituent stressed	teacup	ˈtiːkʌp	nominal
	Suitcase	ˈsjuːtkeɪs
	Typewriter	ˈtaɪpˌraɪtə
Second constituent stressed	head first	hɛdˈfɜːst	adverbial
	Downstream	ˌdaʊnˈstriːm
	north- east	nɔːθ ˈiːst
	bad- tempered	bæd ˈtɛmpəd	adjectival
	second- class	sɛkənd ˈklɑːs
	heavy- handed	hɛvi ˈhændɪd
	ill-treat	ɪlˈtriːt	function as verb
	down-grade	daʊnˈgreɪd
	back-pedal	bæk-ˈpɛdl

Reliability Statistics
	Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items	N. of Transcribers
	0.952	3

Word types	Test words	Correct stress	Percentage	Total percentage		Incorrect stress	Percentage	Total percentage
first position stressed	product	11	36.68 %	48.34%		19	63.32 %	51.66%
first position stressed	Equal	18	60 %	48.34%		12	40 %	51.66%
second position stressed	maintain	8	26.67%	41.67%		22	73.33 %	58.33%
second position stressed	Complete	17	56.67 %	41.67%		13	43.33%	58.33%
Mean		45%			55%
SD		4.7164
P value		0.1683

Position	Test words	Correct stress	Percentage	Total percentage	Incorrect stress	Percentage	Total percentage
first	monitor	22	73.4 %	40.02%	8	26.6%	59.98%
	demonstrate	5	16.66%		25	83.33 %
	derelict	9	30 %		21	70 %
second	abandon	22	73.33 %	52.22%	8	26.67 %	47.78%
	determine	10	33.33 %		20	66.67 %
	enormous	15	50 %		15	50 %
Third	kangaroo	2	6.67 %	36.67%	28	93.33 %	63.33%
	resurrect	11	36.67 %		19	63.33 %
	entertain	20	66.67%		10	33.33%
Mean		42.97%			57.03%
SD		8.1840
P value		0.1032

Words	Correct stress placement	Incorrect stress placement
Di-syllabic	45 %	55 %
Tri-syllabic	42.97%	57.03%
Multi-syllabic	32.59%	67.41%
Mean	40.19%	59.81%
SD	6.6567
P value	0.0225

Complex words	Correct stress placement	Incorrect stress placement
with prefixes	47%	53%
with suffixes	37%	63%
Mean	42%	58%
SD	5.00
P value	0.0173

Test words	Correct stress	Percentages	Total percentage	Incorrect stress	percentage	Total percentage
teacup	23	76.67 %	61.11%	7	23.33 %	38.89%
Suitcase	17	56.67 %		13	43.33 %
typewriter	15	50 %		15	50 %
head first	12	40 %	27.78%	18	60%	72.22%
downstream	6	20 %		24	80 %
north- east	7	23.33 %		23	76.67 %
bad- tempered	7	23.33 %	14.44%	23	76.67 %	85.56%
second- class	1	3.33 %		29	96.67 %
heavy- handed	5	16.67 %		25	83.33 %
ill-treat	10	33.33 %	22.22%	20	66.67 %	77.78%
down-grade	4	13.33%		26	86.67%
back-pedal	6	20%		24	80%
mean	31.38%			68.61%
SD	20.5564
P value	0.0429