The Meaning of Intonational Contours: Proposals and Experiments

1. The Meaning of Intonational Contours: Proposals and Experiments Julia Hirschberg Columbia University and KTH Lund 2008

2. Contours and Contour Meaning • Intonational contours make a major contribution to how the sentences we produce are interpreted • Identifying precisely what this contribution is can be difficult • Standard American English yes-no question contours might seem easy but… • Is John leaving? • John? • Okay?

3. Hypothesis: • Contour meanings are pragmatic in nature – they can only be interpreted in the context in which the contours are produced, wrt the words that are uttered

4. Today: Some Approaches to Studying Contour Meaning • A prerequisite: a common vocabulary • A theoretical proposal: Intonational meaning is compositional (Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg ’90) • Some empirical studies: • Comparing intonational disambiguation in English, Spanish and Italian (Avesani et al ’95, Hirschberg & Avesani ’00) • Garden-path sentences in Swedish (House ’85) • Phrasing in ambiguous (Bruce, Granström & House ’92)

5. Describing Intonation: The American School • American school-type models of intonation distinguish between accents (what makes a particular word prominent) and boundary tones (how a phrase ends) • Autosegmental metrical or two-tone models • Only two tones, which may be combined • H = high target • L = low target

6. Pierrehumbert ’80: Intonation in Standard American English (SAE) • Contours = pitch accents, phrase accents, boundary tones Pitch Accents* Phrase Accents* Boundary Tone H* L* L*+H L+H* H*+L H+L* L% H% L- H-

7. Pitch Accent/Prominence • Which items are made intonationally prominent and how: tonal targets/levels • Accent type: • H* simple high (declarative) • L* simple low (ynq) • L*+H scooped, late rise (uncertainty/ incredulity) • L+H* early rise to stress (contrastive focus) • H*+L fall from high stress (triggers downstep) • H+L* fall onto stress (implied familiarity)

8. Downstepped accents may follow a complex accent • H*+L • L+H* • L*+H • Degree of prominence not indicated

9. Prosodic Phrasing • Two levels of phrasing: • Intermediate phrase: one or more pitch accents plus a phrase accent, H- or L- • The high phrase accent may also be downstepped • Intonational phrase: 1 or more intermediate phrases + boundary tone, H% or L%

10. L-L% L-H% H-L% H-H% H* L* L*+H

11. L-L% L-H% H-L% H-H% L+H* H+!H* H* !H*

12. A Compositional Account of Intonational Meaning (Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg ’92) • Pierrehumbert ’80, ToBI, useful for talking about/comparing different intonational contours • Since distinctions based on differences in perceived ‘meaning’, can they be used for more? • Hypothesis: The intonational lexicon is compositional • Contours convey relationships • Between current, prior, and following utterances • Between propositional content and mutual beliefs • Contour meanings are composed of the meanings of their pitch accents, phrase accents and boundary tones

13. An Example: L* H- H% • The yes-no-question contour can be decomposed phonologically into (a sequence of) L*, H-, and H% • If each phonological category makes its own contribution to overall contour meaning…. • The meaning of L* H- H% can be derived by composing the meanings of its constituents • So • Sem(L*) + Sem(H-) + Sem(H%) = Sem(L* H-H%)

14. Problem • How do we determine what the independent contribution of each constituent is? • Pitch accents, e.g., do not appear in isolation • But they do appear in multiple contexts, e.g. • H* L-L% and H* H-H% • What do these contour meanings have in common? • Could this common meaning be, e.g., the independent meaning of H*? • But how do we know what the overall contours mean?

15. Hypothesis: Pitch Accent • Convey information status about discourse references, modifiers, predicates and their relationship to S and H’s mutual beliefs • H*: X is new and predicated My name is H* Mark H* Liberman H-H% • L*: X is salient but not part of the speaker’s predication …L* Stalin was L* right H-H% • H*+L: X is inferable from S and H’s mutual beliefs and part of the predication H*+L Don’t H*+L forget to H*+L take your H* lunch L-L%

16. H+L* (H+!H*): X is inferable from S and H’s mutual beliefs but not part of predication She’s H+L* teething L-L% • L*+H: X is part of a scale but not part of the predication …I fed the L*+H goldfish L-H% • L+H*: X is part of a scale and in S and H’s mutual beliefs (narrow focus) I don’t L+H* want L+H* shrimp L-H% I want L+H* lobster L-L%

17. Hypothesis: Phrase Accents • Convey relationships among intermediate phrases, e.g., does this phrase form part of a larger interpretive unit or not? • L-: X L- Y means X and Y are to be interpreted separately from one another Do you want a sandwich L- or orange juice? • H-: X H- Y means X and Y should be interpreted together Do you want apple juice H- or a cookie?

18. Hypothesis: Boundary Tones • Signal the directionality of interpretation of intonational phrases • H%: X H% Y means interpret X wrt Y You made seven errors L-H% What a shame L-L% We don’t have time to continue today. • L%: X L% Y means no directionality of interpretation suggested You made seven errors L-L% What a shame L-H% We don’t have time to continue today.

19. Many Questions Remain • How do the meanings of different pitch accent types in a single phrase combine? The L* blackboard’s painted H* orange L-L% (contradiction contour) • How do we distinguish the meaning of a phrase accent from that of a boundary tone – especially in intonational phrases with a single intermediate phrase? • E.g. H* H-L% (plateau) vs. H*H-H% (high-rise question) vs. H*L-L% (declarative) • How do we test this compositional hypothesis? • Does it predict the meanings of other contours?

20. Empirical Studies • L*+H: Rise-fall-rise -- Uncertainty or incredulity (Hirschberg & Ward ’92) Did you feed the animals? I fed the cat. • H* H-H%: High-Rise Question contour (Hirschberg & Ward ’95) This is the chicken chermula? • Epistemic would in H* L-L%, L* H-H%, and H*+L H* L-L% contexts (Gravano et al ’08) Who’ll be the next president? That would be Barak Obama.

21. Realizing given/new information: deaccenting vs. downstep (Hirschberg et al ’07, Gravano & Hirschberg ’06) I have the blue rhinoceros and the lemon? I have the blue rhinoceros and the money. • Intonational disambiguation across languages (Hirschberg et al ’95,Hirschberg & Avesani ’00)

22. Research Questions • Do speakers consistently disambiguate potentially ambiguous utterances intonationally? • Do native speakers of different languages employ similar methods of disambiguation for similar kinds of ambiguities?

23. Avesani et al ‘95 • Disambiguation in English, Italian and Spanish • Phenomena • Scope of negation Bill doesn’t drink because he’s unhappy • Quantifier scope and association w/focus He only wounded Anne. • PP-attachment He won the woman with the die.

24. Method • Production study comparing English, Italian and Spanish speakers (4 per language) • Potentially ambiguous utterances embedded in contexts to disambiguate • Paragraphs recorded (subjects read target in both contexts) • Target utterances excised and labeled for prosodic features in isolation

25. English I know William very well. Since his girlfriend left him, he’s done nothing but drink. It’s been such a long time since his separation, that he’s used to living alone. Now, William doesn’t drink because he’s unhappy. He drinks because he’s an alcoholic. There’s something about William that puzzles me. When he’s happy, he has a good time with his friends, and certainly he doesn’t dislike drinking. I think I understand what’s wrong. William doesn’t drink because he’s unhappy.

26. Spanish Conozco a Guillermo muy bien. Desde que su novia le dejo, no ha hecho nada mas que beber. Despues de tanto tiempo de su separacion, se ha acostumbrado a vivir solo. Ahora, Guillermo no bebe porque esta triste. Simplement, porque es un alcoholico. Ha algo de Guillermo que no me convence. Cuando le veo feliz, se que se lo pasa, bien con sus amigos, y que no le desagrada beber. Creo que se lo que le pasa. Guillermo no bebe porque esta triste.

27. Prosodic Variation • Labeled using ToBI labeling schemes for Standard American English, Spanish and Tuscan Italian • Phrasing: `chunking’ of words into prosodic units • Degree of juncture between words • William isn’t drinking L-H% because he’s unhappy L-L% • William isn’t drinking because he’s unhappy L-L% • Tonal marking of phrase endings • William isn’t drinking because he’s unhappy L-H%

28. Pitch accent: prominence • Varying location He only H* wounded Anne L-L%. He only wounded H* Anne L-L%. • Varying degree of prominence He only H* wounded H* Anne L-L%. • Varying type of accent He only L*+H wounded H* Anne L-L%.

29. Overall contour • Declarative He H* even H* embraced the H* policeman L-L% • Yes-no question He L* even L* embraced the L* policeman H-H% • Plateau He H* even H* embraced the H* policeman H-L% • Rise/fall/rise He H* even H* embraced the L*+H policeman L-H%

30. Results • Scope of negation similarly disambiguated between wide and narrow readings by variation of intonational phrasing (one phrase vs. two) • Spanish and Italian speakers also varied nuclear stress placement (on verb for wide) Guillermo no bebe porque esta triste • English speakers also used continuation rise (L-H%) for wide, falling for narrow Bill doesn’t drink because he’s unhappy • PP-attachment disambiguated by phrasing variation (for Italian speakers)

31. Quantifier scope disambiguated by varying nuclear stress placement and phrasing (for Italian, Spanish, 2 English subjects) It’s important that only Mary comes. • Association with focus: only consistently disambiguated by all three He only wounded Anne. • Were these results reliable? • Were they generalizable to other scope and attachment ambiguities?

32. Hirschberg & Avesani (’97, ‘00) • More ambiguous phenomena for English and Italian • PP, adverbial and relative clause attachment • 2 focus-sensitive operators, onlyand even • Scope of negation and quantifiers (none) • More data collected • 21 ambiguous sentences embedded in disambiguating contexts • 6 subjects per language, reading each pair of paragraphs for understanding and answered free and forced choice tests to elicit meaning

33. Meaning Tests William is a hopeless case. There’s nothing anyone can do to make him stop drinking. For a while, his friends thought he only drank to forget his troubles. But that doesn’t seem to be true. William isn’t drinking because he’s unhappy. He drinks because he’s an alcoholic. A) In this paragraph, the sentence `William isn’t drinking because he’s unhappy.’ means:…………. B) Please answer the following question: • Does William drink? __ yes __ no • Only 8/504 interpretation variations

34. Each subject recorded reading both versions of each target • Target utterances excised and blind labeled for intonational features using English and Italian ToBI systems

35. Prosodic Disambiguation of Syntactic and Semantic Ambiguity • Scope • Of negation William isn’t drinking because he’s unhappy. • Of quantifiers The presence of none of the professors will embarrass her. • Association with focus He only wounded Anne. He even embraced the policeman.

36. Attachment: • Preposition phrase The CIA searched for agents for Saudi Arabia. • Adverbial phrase He had spoken to her quite clearly. • Relative clause The professor who loves jelly beans died in terrible pain.

37. Results for English Speakers (n=252) • Clear trends shared by all speakers for scope of negation and focus ambiguities • Scope of negation disambiguated by phrasing • Wide: H* William isn’t !H* drinking because he’s H* unhappy L-H% • Narrow: H* William isn’t !H* drinking L-H% because he’s H* unhappy L-L%

38. Association with focus for only and evensignaled by nuclear stress placement (89%) • Wounded: He H* only H* wounded Anne L-L% • Anne: He H* only !H* wounded !H* Anne L-L% • Adverbial and relative clause attachment signaled by phrasing, but not PP attachment • Adverbials S-attached: He had L+H* spoken to her L- H* quite !H* clearly L-L% (61%) • VP-attached: He had L+H* spoken to her quite !H* clearly L-L%(94%) • Non-restrictive relatives: The H* professor L-H% who loves H* jelly beans L-H% H* died in !H* terrible H* pain L-L%(50%)

39. Restrictive: The H* professor who loves H* jelly beans H* died in !H* terrible H* pain L-L%. (78%) • Variation between productions for quantifier scope ambiguities but no consistency

40. Results for Italian Speakers (n=252) • Clear patterns of disambiguation for scope of negation and focus; less consistency for attachment; consistent disambiguation of quantifier scope • Scope of negation disambiguated by phrasing Wide: H* Guglielmo non H+L* beve perche e infelice L-L%(100%) Narrow: H* Guglielmo non H* beve H- perche e H+L* infelice L-L%(94%) • Focus distinguished by accent placement and variation in accent prominence (81%)

41. Ferito:Ha H* solo H+L* ferito Anna L-L% Anna: Ha H* solo ferito H+L* Anna L-L% • PP, adverbial and relative clause attachment less consistently disambiguated by phrasing or relative prominence of accent (60%) • Quantifier scope disambiguated by varying accent placement or relative prominence (89%)

42. Comparisons

43. Conclusions • When do speakers disambiguate intonationally? • When ambiguity is semantic in nature? • Semantic ambiguity (scope,focus) disambiguated more consistently than syntactic (attachment) • When context does not? • Experimental Paradox: using disambiguation by context to elicit data frees subjects from the need to disambiguate?

44. How do they disambiguate? • Speakers of both English and Italian use phrasing and accent to disambiguate, but Italians make greater use of accent location and prominence • Phrasing appears to be a more reliable indicator for both

45. Research Questions • Under what circumstances do speakers employ intonational cues that disambiguate? • If context and intonation provide different cues, which prevails? • Do non-native speakers interpret disambiguation phenomena more reliably if those same phenomena disambiguate similarly in their native language?

46. Experiments in Swedish Phrasing • House ’85 • Reaction time experiments on Garden Path sentences varying phrasing • passive vs. active verbs, phrasing cues Männen, ritade av flickan, rökte. Mannen, ritad av flickan, rökte. Killarna, rakade och tvättade, sjöng. Killen, rakad och tvättad, sjöng.

47. Bruce, Granström & House ’92 • How do people convey phrase boundaries without actually pausing? När pappa fiskar | stör Piper Putte. När pappa fiskar stör | piper Putte. När han överlämnade sej | och bonden hälsade kungen med ett leende | så blev det bara så. När han överlämnade sej och bonden | hälsade kungen med ett leende | såblev det bara så. • Durational lengthening and f0 fall before boundaries, e.g.

48. Are there Other Cases of Intonational Disambiguation in Swedish? • Scope of quantifiers, negation? Bill doesn’t drink because he’s unhappy. He only wounded Anne. • Attachment? He shot the man with the gun. The professor who loved jellybeans died in terrible pain. He had spoken to her quite clearly.

49. Concluding Remarks • Many approaches to the study of contour meaning • A common description framework essential • Laboratory and ‘on-the-fly’ data collection • Within- and cross-language studies • Much to be done!

50. Tack!