Pitch Accent on Discourse Marker and Discourse Construction

1. Pitch Accent on Discourse Marker and Discourse Construction Kiwako Ito & Ross Metusalem

2. Discourse Markers • Discourse Markers (DMs): words or short phrases that set relations between prior discourse and current utterances e.g., now, well, anyway, next, however, by the way, in any case, etc. “Cue phrases … directly signal the structure of discourse” (Hirschberg & Litman, 1993)

3. Intonational variation for DMs Prosody differentiates the uses of multi-functional DMs F: It was at one time all: almost all Jewish. Nowit’s I would say si- J: sixty Jewish, forty Italian. (Schiffrin, 1987: p231)

4. Intonational variation for DMs • They aren’t brought up the same way. • Now Italian people are very outgoing. • They are very generous. • When they put a meal on the table it’s a meal. • Now these boys were Irish. • They lived different. (Schiffrin, 1987: p231)

5. Intonation and Meaning • Intonational contours used to indicate pragmatic meaning (Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg, 1990) • e.g., H* is ‘new’, L-H% is ‘continuation rise’ • L+H* is commonly used to ‘mark a correction or contrast’ (p. 296) • e.g., ‘Don’t hand me the blue pen. Hand me the RED one.’

6. Intonation and Online Discourse Processing • Intonation affects comprehension • L+H* used felicitously aids sentence comprehension(Bock & Mazella, 1983) e.g., ARNOLD/Arnold didn’t FIX/fix the radio. DORIS fixed the radio’ (p. 66) • L+H* can lead to anticipatory eye movements(Ito and Speer, in press) e.g., First, hang the green ball. Now, hang the BLUE ball’ (p. 11)

7. L+H* and DMs Ito & Speer cont’d • Hang the blue ball. And THEN/then, hang the GREEN ball. • No anticipatory eye movements, but faster decline from target when L+H* on DM • L+H* on DM may lead to anticipation of contrast

8. Research Question Does L+H* on a DM lead to expectation of contrast between preceding utterance and upcoming utterance?  If yes, is the effect global or local? Is accentual property of a DM interpreted a/c prosodic structure of prior context?

9. The Experiment • Discourse completion task • subjects listen to short stories and provide an appropriate continuation • accentual pattern of stimuli varied to test effect of L+H* in prior discourse and DM • Hypothesis: L+H* on DM evokes a contrast between preceding utterance and upcoming utterance • Prosodic and informational structure of responses should be more predictable from preceding sentence when L+H* on DM versus H* on DM

10. Materials Three-part stimulus • Context: two people in naturalistic situation; ‘Collaborative’ and ‘Companionship’ contexts ‘This spring, Mary and Adam finally started gardening.’ • Prompt: one person from Context engages in an action; strict SVO structure ‘Early on, Mary planted basil.’ • DM: 4 temporal DMS prompt sequential event; test effect of DM accentual pattern ‘And then,’ ‘And next,’ ‘After that,’ ‘Following that’

11. Materials (cont’d) 3 prosodic variations of Prompt • ‘Mary planted basil.’ H* !H* L-L% • ‘MARY planted basil.’ L+H* L-L% H* L-L% • ‘Mary planted BASIL.’ H* L+H* L-L%

12. Prompt 1

13. Prompt 2

14. Prompt 3

15. Average Duration and f0 Value of Prompts

16. Materials (cont’d) 2 prosodic variations of DM • ‘And THEN.’ L+H* L-H% • ‘And then.’ H* L-H%

17. DM 1

18. DM 2

19. Average Duration and f0 Value of DMs

20. Experimental Conditions Conditions 1-6 Examples of Conditions 1-6

21. Experimental Setup • 48 target trials (8 per condition) • 48 filler trials • intransitives and datives exhibiting L+H* on subject, verb, or direct/indirect object • included ‘however’ as DM • 6 lists, 3 blocks per list

22. Procedure • Participants (25 total) seated in soundproof booth and presented stimuli through Eprime • Continuations recorded in Praat V4.5.15

23. Data Analysis • Each continuation coded for status as a ‘parallel’ or ‘non-parallel’ continuation • ‘parallel’ involves syntactic/thematic structures and discourse purpose • coding gives view of direct contrast within discourse context

24. Parallel Continuation • Syntactic structure • SVO • Thematic structure • agent - transitive verb - patient • Discourse purpose • Contributes to topic/goal of discourse in a way parallel to the Prompt

25. Parallel Continuation (cont’d) This spring, Mary and Adam finally started gardening. Early on, Mary planted basil. And then… she planted oregano. Adam planted tomatoes. Before heading into the movie theater, Jenna and Wally stopped at the concessions stand. Considering many options, Wally chose popcorn. And then… Jenna bought Sour Patch Kids.

26. Parallel Continuation (cont’d) Before choosing their new home, Drew and Nora toured many houses. In the first house, Drew explored the kitchen. After that… Nora checked out the bathroom.

27. Non-Parallel Continuation • Syntactic/Thematic violation After setting up their tent, Gary and Laurie started the BBQ. Before anything else, Laurie seasoned the meat. And next… she put the meat on the grill. Gary turned the barbeque on. To renovate the kitchen, both Arnold and Molly spent a lot of money. Initially, Molly replaced the cabinets. Following that… Arnold put the new tile on the floor.

28. Non-Parallel Continuation (cont’d) • Discourse Purpose violation This spring, Mary and Adam finally started gardening. Early on, Mary planted basil. And then… Adam uprooted the basil. Before hanging the new curtains, Lara and Brian decided to clean the living room. First, Lara opened the window. After that… Brian threw the lamp out.

29. Ambiguous Cases • Some continuations could not be classified as parallel or non-parallel When the power went down, Julie and Ben were cooking dinner. Unable to see, Julie dropped a plate. And next… Ben lit a candle. discourse purpose?

30. Ambiguous Cases For the first time in their lives, Donna and Bill stayed in a five-star resort hotel. Soon after lunch, Donna visited spa. Following that… Bill got a massage.

31. Information Status • Tags motivated by Ch. 2 ‘A theory of discourse coherence’ in • Coherence, Reference and the Theory of Grammar by Andrew Kehler (2002)

32. Example Transcription

33. Predictions • Informational focus should be more predictable from • Prompt when L+H* on DM than H*on DM

34. DM Accent and Parallel Continuation • 573 continuations analyzed • 203 parallel (35%) • L+H* on DM did not induce parallel continuation more than H*

35. Experimental Conditions and Parallel Continuation • L+H* on DM effect hinted at only when object of Prompt had L+H* (C5 & 6)

36. Experimental Conditions and Parallel Continuation • L+H* on DM effect hinted at only when object of Prompt had L+H* (C5 & 6) • Prompt 1 (C1&C2 = 60) • Prompt 2 (C3&C4 = 72) • Prompt 3 (C5&C6 = 71) • Parallel continuations • appeared more often when • Prompt had L+H*

37. Information Structure of Continuation Types • Parallel continuations exhibit mainly contrastive subjects, parallel verbs, and contrastive arguments

38. Information Status Distribution in Parallel Continuations • No clear effect of DM accent in Prompt 1 (no L+H*) • Patterns • emerge for • other Prompt • types

39. Subject Prominence (C3 & 4) • Contrastive • subject more • often when • DM has L+H*

40. Subject Prominence (C3 & 4) • Contrastive • subject more • often when • DM had L+H* • Subject retained • more often • when DM did • not have L+H*

41. Object Prominence (C5 & 6) • More contrastive • arguments when • DM did not have • L+H*

42. Object Prominence (C5 & 6) • More contrastive • arguments when • DM did not have • L+H* • More retained • arguments when • DM had L+H*

43. Interesting Findings • Prominent Subject (C3 & 4) • L+H* on DM led to more contrastive subjects and less retained subjects  aligns with predictions • Prominent Object (C5 & 6) • L+H* on DM led to less contrastive arguments and more retained arguments  opposite of predictions

44. Three Possibilities (1) L+H* on DM reinforces contrast in subject position but blocks contrast in object position Subject L+H* Object L+H* Subject Object

45. Three Possibilities (2) L+H* in Prompt lead to different expectations a/c the accent location  DM reinforces the appropriate expectation Subject Object Subject L+H* Object

46. Three Possibilities (3) L+H* in Prompt leads to different expectations due to FOCUS PROJECTION  DM highlights the optional broader focus? Subject Object Subject L+H* Object VP (Object) L+H*

47. Contrast Frequency: Subject vs. Object • Overall, data exhibited more subject contrast than object contrast • Prosodically highlighted subject evokes alternative agent from Context  salient • Prosodically highlighted object evokes set of possible alternatives  less salient

48. Cross-Subject Variability • Continuation strategies varied widely between subjects • Parallel continuations: 12 to 29 • Contrastive subjects: 10 to 41 • Parallel verbs: 8 to 24 • Contrastive arguments: 11 to 26

49. Stimuli Problems • Some items exhibit bias for contrast due to salience of contrastive entities Following dinner, Al and Gail stopped at the ice cream shop. After waiting in line, Al ordered vanilla. After that… • many salient contrasts with ‘vanilla’ • semantically biased to parallel continuation

50. Stimuli Problems (cont’d) • Some items exhibit bias against contrast With the tornado siren sounding, Rose and Greg prepared to take cover. In a hurry, Greg entered the basement. And then… • few, if any, salient contrasts with ‘basement’ • Parallel continuation mainly limited to ‘Rose entered the basement.’