IS SENTENCE VIABLE? The 3 rd International Conference on Cognitive Science Moscow, June 21, 2008

1. IS SENTENCE VIABLE?The 3rd International Conference on Cognitive ScienceMoscow, June 21, 2008 Andrej A. Kibrik(kibrik@comtv.ru) Vera I. Podlesskaya(podlesskaya@ocrus.ru )

2. Does spoken language consist of sentences? • Sheer facts: • Spoken language is the primary form of language • Spoken language does not contain periods, question marks and other explicit signals of sentence boundaries • Research question: • Is sentence, as a theoretical construct, as identifiable and as basic for the primary form of language as it is (or as it is thought to be) for written language?

3. Sentence in spoken language • Position 1: sentence is a universal and basic unit of language • Assumption typically held by not only by linguists but also by other cognitive scientists • “With no more than 50 to 100 K words humans can create and understand an infinite number of sentences” (Bernstein et al. 1994: 349-350) • Psycholinguistics: “Sentence processing” • But sentence is very far from being obvious in spoken language • Position 2: avoidance of the issue, typical of discourse-oriented linguists • If so, how could sentences become so much entrenched in written language?

4. Night Dream Stories • Corpus of spoken Russian stories • Speakers: children and adolescents • Subject matter: retelling of night dreams • Discourse type: monologic narrative (personal stories) • Speech act type: declaratives

5. Two basic features of spoken discourse • Segmentation • Transitional continuity

6. Segmentation • Elementary discourse units (EDUs) • Identified on the basis of a conjunction of prosodic criteria: • Tempo pattern • Loudness pattern • Integral tonal contour • Presence of an accentual center • Pausing pattern • Speakers tend to organize EDUs as clausal units

7. Example of segmentation Z54 Discourse transcription

8. Transitional continuity • Term by J. DuBois et al. 1992 • Alternative term by Sandro V. Kodzasov: phase • Discourse semantic category: ‘end’ vs. ‘non-end’ (=expectation of a forthcoming end) • Hierarchical nature of phase • End of tentative sentence – falling tonal accent • Non-end – rising tonal accent

9. A canonical example of the transitional continuity distinction z57:15-16 • ..(0.4) /\Мы-ы’ ..(0.4) \как бы за них /взя-ались, ..(0.4) /\My-y’ ..(0.4) \kakbyzanix /vzja-alis’, We sort of at them got.hold • ...(0.5) и-и ввь= || ..(0.2) полетели \вве-ерх. • ...(0.5) i-i vv’= || ..(0.2) poleteli \vve-erx. • and flew upward • Rising (“comma”) • Non-end • Falling (“period”) • End • If things were that easy, sentence would be uncontroversial

10. ....(1.5) /\Озеро ...(0.5)какое-то, ..(0.3) (Или /\речка, или /\озеро, но по-моему \озеро, потому что’..(0.2) как-то-оw...(0.6)\маленькоетакое, \небольшое.) ....(1.0) ’и-иh ...(0.7)через/него..(0.3)как-то\бревнокакое-то, типа\моста. ....(1.5) /\Ozero ...(0.5) kakoe-to, Lake some ..(0.3) (Ili/\rečka, Either river ili/\ozero, or lake no po-moemu\ozero, but I guess lake potomučto’..(0.2) kak-to-oWbecause somehow...(0.6) \malen’koe takoe, small such \nebol’šoe.) minor ....(1.0) ’i-iH ...(0.7) čerez /negoand across it ..(0.3) kak-to\brevno kakoe-to,somehow log some tipa\mosta.like bridge Uncanonical situation: Non-end with a falling tonal accent

11. The problem of two kinds of falling • The existence of non-final falling may call relevance of sentence into question • However, the distinction between two kinds of falling is very systematic • The two kinds of falling: • are prosodically distinct • have distinct discourse functions

12. Prosodic criteria of the final vs. non-final falling distinction • Primary criteria: • Target frequency band • Post-accent behavior

13. Criterion 1: Target frequency band • Final falling (“period”): targets at the bottom of the speaker’s F0 range • Non-final falling (“faling comma”): targets at level several dozen Hz (several semitones) higher

14. F0 graph for the “lake” example 12 10 12 8 5 \ozero, \malen’koe \nebol’ \brevno kakoe \mosta. takoe, šoe. -to,

15. Non-final falling (210 Гц),final falling (170 Гц),rising, post-rising falling Z54: 4-5 170 Hz 210 Hz

16. Criterion 2: Post-accent behavior • Final falling (“period”): steady falling on the post-accent syllables • Non-final falling (“comma”): lack of falling on post-accent syllables, often rise of tone (V-curve)

17. V-curve z26 260 Hz 240 Hz 235 Hz

18. Secondary criteria • Pausing pattern • Reset vs. latching • Steepness of falling • Interval of falling

19. The final vs. non-final falling distinction • A speaker’s prosodic pattern must be identified • On its basis the difference between final and non-final falling distinction can be identified with a high degree of robustness

20. Contexts of non-final falling • Anticipatory mirror-image adaptation • Inset • Stepwise falling

21. Anticipatory mirror-image adaptation • ....(1.8)Когдая\услышала, Kogda ja \uslyšala,when I heard • ...(0.5)что-о/бомбагремит, čto-o /bomba gremit, that bomb growls

22. Inset • /Входитэто ...(0.5)/\ма-аль↑чик,/Vxoditèto ...(0.5) /\ma-al’↑čik, enters here boy • ’ ’ ..(0.1)/\нук\другому, ’ ’ ..(0.1) /\nu k \drugomu, well to another • ..(0.1) и\говорит: ..(0.1) i \govorit: and says

23. ....(1.5) /\Озеро ...(0.5)какое-то, ..(0.3) (Или /\речка, или /\озеро, но по-моему \озеро, потому что’..(0.2) как-то-оw...(0.6)\маленькоетакое, \небольшое.) ....(1.5) /\Ozero ...(0.5) kakoe-to, Lake some ..(0.3) (Ili/\rečka, Either river ili/\ozero, or lake no po-moemu\ozero, but I guess lake potomučto’..(0.2) kak-to-oWbecause somehow...(0.6) \malen’koe takoe, small such \nebol’šoe.) minor Stepwise falling 210 Hz 190 Hz 160 Hz

24. Representation of EDU continuity types in corpus

25. The status of sentence • In the speech of most speakers final falling is clearly distinct from non-final patterns • Final intonation, expressly distinct from non-final intonation (both rising and falling), makes the notion of sentence valid for spoken discourse • Speakers “know” when they complete a sentence and when they do not • Apparently, spoken sentences are the prototype of written sentences

26. Functions of sentences • Ease the processing by creating intermediate informational chunks • Chafe: superfoci of consciousness

27. However • Identification of sentences is possible only on the basis of a complex analytic procedure • It is dependent on prior understanding of a speaker’s prosodic “portrait” • There are prototypes of final and non-final fallings, but there are intermediate instances, therefore sentencehood may be a matter of degree • A significant tune-up is necessary to apply the procedure to a different discourse type or a different language • Therefore, sentence is an elusive, intermediate, non-basic unit of language

28. EDUs:distribution in terms of number of words Sentences:distribution in terms of number of EDUs EDUs vs. sentences: degree of variability 53% –3±1 80% –3±2

29. EDUs vs. sentences: degree of variability • Unlike EDUs, sentences are highly variable • Speakers with short sentences • Speakers with long sentences equaling stories • Clause chaining

30. Conclusions • Sentence is an intermediate hierarchical grouping between a whole discourse and an EDU (roughly, clause) • Sentence is very far away from being a basic unit of spoken language

31. Acknowledgement Member of our project Nikolay Korotaev