1

IS SENTENCE VIABLE?

The 3rd International Conference on Cognitive Science

Moscow, 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

dreamsDiscourse 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

/мы с= || ехали на \автобусеw./my s= || exali na \avtobusew.We rode on bus

...(0.6) /Я /первая села в \автобус.

...(0.6) /Ja /pervaja sela v \avtobus. I first got on bus

..(0.4) А /тогда уже д= || ..(0.2) закрывались \двери,

..(0.4) A /togda uže d= || ..(0.2) zakryvalis’ \dveri,And then already d= were.closing doors

..(0.1) и /’Аня не –успела \сесть.

..(0.1) i /Anja ne –uspela \sest’. and Anja not managed get.in

...(0.7) Иw мм(0.4) /\когда-а ..(0.2) ’’(0.3) ..(0.4) {ЧМОКАНЬЕ 0.2} ..(0.4) когда я приехала на нашу /остановку’, ...(0.7) IW mm(0.4) /\kogda-a ..(0.2) ’’(0.3) ..(0.4) {SMACKING 0.2} ..(0.4) kogda ja priexala na našu /ostanovku’, And when when I arrived to our station

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) \kak by za nix /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

Uncanonical situation: Non-end with a falling tonal accent

....(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) \маленькое такое,

\небольшое.)

....(1.0) ’и-иh ...(0.7)через /него

..(0.3) как-то \бревно какое-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

potomu čto’ ..(0.2) kak-to-oWbecause somehow ...(0.6) \malen’koe takoe,

small such \nebol’šoe.)

minor ....(1.0) ’i-iH ...(0.7) čerez /nego

and across it ..(0.3) kak-to \brevno kakoe-to,

somehow log some tipa \mosta.

like bridge

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:1. Target frequency band2. 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

\ozero, \malen’koe \nebol’ \brevno kakoe \mosta.

takoe, šoe.-to,

12 10 125

8

15

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

..(0.4) А /тогда уже д= || ..(0.2) закрывались \двери,

..(0.4) A /togda uže d= || ..(0.2) zakryvalis’ \dveri,And then already d= were.closing doors

..(0.1) и /’Аня не –успела \сесть.

..(0.1) i /Anja ne –uspela \sest’. and Anja not managed get.in

...(0.7) Иw мм(0.4) /\когда-а ..(0.2) ’’(0.3) ..(0.4) {ЧМОКАНЬЕ 0.2} ..(0.4) когда я приехала на нашу /остановку’, ...(0.7) IW mm(0.4) /\kogda-a ..(0.2) ’’(0.3) ..(0.4) {SMACKING 0.2} ..(0.4) kogda ja priexala na našu /ostanovku’, And when when I arrived to our station

210 Hz170 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

....(5.7) /Домик ...(0.6) был /около \реч↑ки,

....(5.7) /Domik ...(0.6) byl /okolo \reč↑ki, Little.house was near creek

....(3.3) /рядом были \–родник-ки,

....(3.3) /rjadom byli \–rodnik-ki, nearby were springs

..(0.4) и \–ле-ес.

..(0.4) i \–le-es. and forest

260 Hz

235 Hz

240 Hz

18

Secondary criteria

3.Pausing pattern4.Reset vs. latching5.Steepness of falling6. 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) Когда я \услышала,Kogda ja \uslyšala,when I heard

...(0.5) что-о /бомба гремит,čto-o /bomba

gremit,that bomb growls

22

Inset

/Входит это ...(0.5) /\ма-аль↑чик,/Vxodit èto ...(0.5) /\ma-al’↑čik,enters here boy

’ ’ ..(0.1) /\ну к \другому,’ ’ ..(0.1) /\nu k \drugomu,

well to another ..(0.1) и \говорит:

..(0.1) i \govorit:and says

23

Stepwise falling ....(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) \маленькое такое,

\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

potomu čto’ ..(0.2) kak-to-oWbecause somehow ...(0.6) \malen’koe takoe,

small such \nebol’šoe.)

minor

210 Hz

190 Hz

160 Hz

24

Representation of EDU continuity types in corpus

894

606

1188

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Finalfalling

Non-finalfalling

(Non-final)rising

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 vs. sentences: degree of variability

EDUs:distribution in terms of number of words

Sentences:distribution in terms of number of EDUs

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 290

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

53% – 3±180% – 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