Prosodic marking of app ositive relative clause types in spoken discourse: pragmatic and phonetic analyses of a British

1. ARC Original F0 Resynthesized F0 (MOMEL) • 2. Prosodic analysis • Prosody as a macro-system: • tonal aspects (tone and intonation, in relation with speech melody) • temporal aspects (unit durations and speech rate) • intensity (one of the major correlates of loudness) • voice quality (in relation with spectral characteristics of the speech signal) (2) he was convinced # the battle # for the hearts # and minds of the people # was being won # especially # among the Ovambo # who form the majority # of SWAPO's support (3) the first book he took from the library was Darwin's # Origin of Species # which inspired him with the dream of becoming a geologist (4) Israelis # have sympathy and liking for Americans # which is just as well # since the country is swarming # with transatlantic visitors • Representation levels (Hirst et al. 2000): • acoustic level: physical characteristics of the speech signal (F0, raw durations, dB) • phonetic level: retains only linguistically significant elements (low-level physical constraints factored out: MoMel modelling, z-transformed durations) • phonological levels (surface and deep): discrete and abstract coding • 2 prosodic dimensions: Linear Orthogonal Level Span 4. Results All ARC types Relevance vs. Subjectivity • 3. Data extraction and analysis • Discourse parameters (5): • ARC type • Position (initial/medial/final) • Information status of antecedent • Information status of ARC • Phrastic status of antecedent • Number of items per ARC type: • Relevance 37 • Subjectivity 8 • Continuative 1 • Relevance/Subjectivity 4 • Ambiguous continuative 2 • Unidentified 2 • Prosodic parameters (48): • Tonal domain (32): ARC mean F0 (Htz + semitones or ST), ARC minimum F0 (Htz + ST), ARC maximum F0 (Htz + ST), ARC register span (Htz + ST), ARC onset (Htz + ST), ARC offset (Htz + ST), previous IU mean F0 (Htz + ST), previous IU minimum F0 (Htz + ST), previous IU maximum F0 (Htz + ST), previous IU register span (Htz + ST), previous IU offset (Htz + ST), next IU mean F0 (Htz + ST), next IU minimum F0 (Htz + ST), next IU maximum F0 (Htz + ST), next IU register span (Htz + ST), next IU onset (Htz + ST), difference between previous IU offset and ARC onset (ST), difference between ARC offset and next IU onset (ST) • Temporal domain (10): ARC duration (raw and normalised), previous IU duration (raw and normalised), next IU duration (raw and normalised), difference between previous IU normalised duration and ARC normalised duration, difference between ARC normalised duration and next IU normalised duration, silence duration before ARC, silence duration after ARC • Intensity domain (6): mean of ARC global intensity, standard deviation of ARC global intensity, mean of previous IU global intensity, standard deviation of previous IU global intensity, mean of next IU global intensity, standard deviation of next IU global intensity * = significant * = significant References: ARMSTRONG, L. & WARD, I. 1931. A handbook of English intonation, Cambridge, Heffer. AURAN, C. 2004. Prosodie et anaphore dans le discours en anglais et en français: cohesion et attribution référentielle. Ph.D. Dissertation, Université de Provence, France and UMR 6057 LPL, CNRS. AURAN, C., BOUZON, C. & HIRST, D.J. 2004. “The Aix-MARSEC project: an evolutive database of spoken British English”, Speech Prosody 2004, Nara, 561-564. AURAN, C. & LOOCK, R. 2006. “Appositive Relative Clauses and their Prosodic Realization in Spoken Discourse: a Corpus Study of Phonetic Aspects in British English”, Constraints in Discourse, CiD06, Maynooth, Irlande, 7-9 juillet 2006 (best paper award). BECKMAN, M.E. & AYERS, G.M. 1994. ToBI annotation conventions. http://ling.ohio-state.edu/~tobi/ame_tobi BLAKEMORE, D. 2005. “And-parentheticals”, in Journal of Pragmatics 37, 1165–1181 BOERSMA, P. 2001. “Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer”, Glot International 5:9/10, 341-345. BOERSMA, P. & WEENINK, D. 2006. Praat: doing phonetics by computer (Version 4.4.17) [Computer program]. Retrieved April 19, 2006, from http://www.praat.org/ BOLINGER, D. 1989. Intonation and Its Uses, London, Edward Arnold. CAELEN, G. & AURAN, C. 2004. “The Phonology of Melodic Prominence: the structure of melisms”, in Speech Prosody 2004, Nara, 143-146. CAMPBELL, N. 2004. “Accounting for voice-quality variation”, in Speech Prosody 2004, Nara, 217-220. CAMPBELL, N. & MOKHTARI 2003. “Voice quality: the 4th prosodic dimension”, in 15th ICPhS (ICPhS'03), Barcelona, Spain, 2417-2420. CORNILESCU, A. 1981. “Non-restrictive Relative Clauses, an Essay in Semantic Description”, in Revue roumaine de linguistique XXVI, 1, 41-67. COUPER-KUHLEN, E. & SELTING, M. 1996. Prosody in Conversation. Interactional Studies, Cambridge, C.U.P. CRUTTENDEN, A. 1986. Intonation, Cambridge, C.U.P. DEPRAETERE, I. 1996. “Foregrounding in English Relative Clauses”, Linguistics 34, 699-731. DI CRISTO, A. 2000. “La problématique de la prosodie dans l’étude de la parole dite spontanée”, in Revue Parole 15- 16, 189-250. DI CRISTO, A., AURAN C., BERTRAND R., CHANET C., PORTES C., REGNIER A. 2004. “Outils prosodiques et analyse du discours”, in CILL 30 (1-3), 27-84. DI CRISTO, A. & HIRST, D.J. 1986. “Modelling French micromelody: analysis and synthesis”, in Phonetica 43, 1-3, 11-30. DI CRISTO, A. & HIRST, D.J. 1998. Intonation Systems: A survey of Twenty Languages, Cambridge, C.U.P. EMONDS, J. 1979. “Appositive Relatives Have No Properties”, in Linguistic Inquiry 10.2, 241-3. FABB, N. 1990. “The Difference between English Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Relative Clauses”, in Linguistics 26, 57-78. GOBL, C. & NÍ CHASAIDE, A. 2003. “The role of voice quality in communicating emotion, mood and attitude”, in Speech Communication 40, 189-212. GREENBAUM, S. (ed.). 1996. Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford, Clarendon Press. HIRST, D.J. & ESPESSER, R. 2000. “Automatic modelling of fundamental frequency using a quadratic spline function”, in Travaux de l'Institut de Phonétique d'Aix 15, 71-85 HIRST, D.J., DI CRISTO, A. & ESPESSER, R. 2000. “Levels of Representation and Levels of Analysis for the Description of Intonation Systems”, in Horne, M. (ed.), Prosody: Theory and Experiment. Text, Speech and Language Technbology, 14. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 51-87. JESPERSEN, O. [1927] 1970. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Vol III. London, George Allen & Unwin. KNOWLES, G., WICHMANN, A. & ALDERSON, P. 1996. Working with Speech: perspectives on research into the Lancaster/IBM Spoken English Corpus. London, Longman. KOOPMANS-VAN BEINUM, F.J.& DONZEL VAN, M.E. 1996. “Relationship between discourse structure and dynamic speech rate”, in Proceedings ICSLP96, Fourth ICSLP, Vol 3, Philadelphia, 1724-1727. LADD, R. 1996. Intonational Phonology. Ccambridge, C.U.P. LOOCK, R. 2003. « Les Fonctions discursives des propositions subordonnées relatives « appositives » en discours », in Anglophonia 12, 113-31. LOOCK, R. 2005. La Proposition subordonnée relative appositive en anglais contemporain à l’écrit et à l’oral: fonctions discursives et structures concurrentes. Ph.D. Dissertation, Lille III University, France. LOOCK, R. 2007. “Appositive Relative Clauses and their Functions in Discourse”, Journal of Pragmatics 39, 336-362. McCAWLEY, J.D. 1982. « Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure », in Linguistic Inquiry 13.1, 91- 106. PRINCE, E F. 1981. “Toward a Taxonomy of Given/New Information”, in Radical Pragmatics, Peter COLE, ed. New York: Academic Press, pp 223-54. PRINCE, E.F. 1986. “On the Syntactic Marking of Presupposed Open Propositions”, in FARLEY, A. et al. (eds), Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, 22nd regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 208-22. PRINCE, E F. 1992. “The ZPG Letter: Subjects, Definiteness, and Information-Status”, in MANN, William C and THOMPSON, Sandra A. (eds), Discourse Description: Diverse Analyses of a Fund Raising Text. Philadelphia, John Benjamins B.U., 295-325. R Language and Environment for Statistical Modelling: available from http://lib.stat.cmu.edu/R/CRAN/ ROACH, P., KNOWLES, G., VARADI, T. & ARNFIELD, S. 1993. “MARSEC: A machine readable Spoken English corpus”, in Journal of the International Phonetic Association 23:2, 47-53. ROSS, J. 1967, Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT. SMITH, C. 2004. “Topic transitions and durational prosody in reading aloud: production and modeling”, in Speech Communication 42, 247-270. SPERBER, D. & WILSON, D. 1986. Relevance, communication and cognition. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers. WICHMANN, A. 2000. Intonation in Text and Discourse. London, Longman. WICHMANN, A. 2001. “Spoken parentheticals”, in Aijmer, K. (ed.), A Wealth of English: Studies in Honour of Goran Kjellmer. Gothenburg, Gothenburg University Press, 171–193. • 1. ARCs and their functions in discourse • Starting point: Loock’s (2003, 2005, 2007) taxonomy of ARCs and their discourse functions: • Differences in the hierarchisation of the informational contents (ARC vs. MC): • Relevance/subjectivity: MC = foreground vs. ARC = background • Continuative: informational contents on the same level (narrative dynamism traditionally restricted to independent clauses; cf. Depraetere 1996) • => Are continuatives independent clauses? • (cf. Ross 1967, Emonds 1979, McCawley 1982, Fabb 1990 among others, who express this idea for ARCs as a whole.) • => Prosodic investigation: are ARCs realized with the intonation contour of independent clauses or parentheticals? • 0. Global project and methodology • Aim: relate discourse functions/structure and prosody • Study of Appositive Relative Clauses in English (ARCs, see 1) • (1) The students, who like linguistics, also like translation. • 2-step methodology: • Discourse annotation: discourse function, information status of ARC and MC, syntactic characteristics • Prosodic annotation: semi-automatic analysis of the corresponding recordings using original scripts with Praat (cf. Boersma & Weenink 2006) • Corpora: • Aix-MARSEC (cf. Auran, Bouzon & Hirst 2004) • IViE (cf. Grabe & Post 2002) • ICE-GB (cf. Greenbaum 1996) CONTINUATIVE ARC (3) It makes narrative time move forward. The events are shown in a sequence and a causal link may exist. Prosodic marking of appositive relative clause types in spoken discourse: pragmatic and phonetic analyses of a British English corpus RELEVANCE ARC (2) SUBJECTIVITY ARC (4) The aim is to optimize the relevance of the antecedent and/or the subject-predicate relation within the MC. The antecedent, in spite of its referential stability, is not sufficiently determined for at least some of the addressees to be used alone in discourse. The ARC conveys information that is explicitly subjective and allows for a rupture between two levels: The referential level (MC) The interpretative level (ARC) EXPLOITATION OF THE INTER-CLAUSAL LINK The inter-clausal link between the MC and the ARC is exploited to bring a new perspective on the contents of the MC. Cyril Auran & Rudy Loock Laboratoire Savoirs, Textes, Langage, Université Lille 3 - CNRS UMR 8163 cyril.auran@univ-lille3.fr / rudy.loock@univ-lille3.fr http://stl.recherche.univ-lille3.fr/projets/discours_prosodie/presentation • 5. Discussion • All ARCS  both typical and atypical characteristics: • Register and intensity levels: lower than those of surrounding units  typical of prosodic parentheticals • Register and intensity spans + speech rate  classical IUs realizing independent clauses • to be linked with the possibility for ARCs to: • have the syntactic behaviour and the semantic interpretation of independent clauses • convey independent speech acts (cf. Emonds 1979, McCawley 1982 among others) • Relevance vs. Subjectivity ARCs: • Discourse discontinuity marking through high onset values for both types • Subjectivity ARCs display even stronger discontinuity↔ more important rupture with the discourse topic (cf. shift between the referential and interpretative levels; see frame 1) • More peripheral information conveyed by subjectivity ARCs (non-topical comment or judgement) • Lower intensity level values for Subjectivity ARC: strategy used by the speaker to induce the perception of intermediate levels between otherwise discrete categories such as continuity/discontinuity, subjectivity/objectivity, etc. (conflicting prosodic characteristics for subjective episodes; cf. Di Cristo et al. 2004) • Speech rate differences need further investigation (the great majority of subjectivity ARCs qualifies sentential antecedents (cf. Loock 2007): parameters difficult to separate) • 6. Conclusion • Apparent correlation between discourse functions and prosody • Some prosodic characteristics atypical of appositions in general • Differences among ARC types: Subjectivity ARCs display prosodic rupture cues, on a par with the peripheral information which they convey • Further investigation: • The respective roles of the syntactic status of the antecedent (nominal vs. sentential) and of the ARC type, particularly with relation to speech rate, need to be closely analysed. • Prosodic characteristics of Continuative ARCs: typical of subordinate or main clauses? • Problem: availability of acoustically exploitable unscripted/spontaneous data IPrA 10 – Göteborg – July 2007