pitch accent on discourse marker and discourse construction kiwako ito & ross metusalem

53
Pitch Accent on Discourse Marker and Discourse Construction Kiwako Ito & Ross Metusalem

Upload: ginger-watson

Post on 17-Dec-2015

231 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Pitch Accent on Discourse Marker and Discourse

Construction

Kiwako Ito

&

Ross Metusalem

Discourse Markers

• Discourse Markers (DMs):

words or short phrases that set relations between prior discourse and current utterancese.g., now, well, anyway, next, however, by

the way, in any case, etc.

“Cue phrases … directly signal the structure of discourse” (Hirschberg & Litman, 1993)

Intonational variation for DMsProsody differentiates the uses of multi-

functional DMs

F: It was at one time all: almost all Jewish.Now it’s I would say si-

J: sixty Jewish, forty Italian.

(Schiffrin, 1987: p231)

Intonational variation for DMsa. They aren’t brought up the same way.b. Now Italian people are very outgoing.c. They are very generous.d. When they put a meal on the table it’s a

meal.e. Now these boys were Irish.f. They lived different.

(Schiffrin, 1987: p231)

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.’

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)

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

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?

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

MaterialsThree-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’

Materials (cont’d)

3 prosodic variations of Prompt1. ‘Mary planted basil.’ H* !H* L-L%

2. ‘MARY planted basil.’ L+H* L-L% H* L-L%

3. ‘Mary planted BASIL.’ H* L+H* L-L%

Prompt 1

MaryplantedbasilH* !H*!H*L–L%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)1 2.4171MaryplantedbasilL+H*L–L%H* L–L%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)1 2.29982

MaryplantedbasilH* L+H*L–L%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)1 2.3483and thenH* H* L–H%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)0 0.881633

and thenH* L+H*L–H%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)0 0.907302

PS1 PS2

PS3

DM1

DM2

Prompt 2

MaryplantedbasilH* !H*!H*L–L%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)1 2.4171MaryplantedbasilL+H*L–L%H* L–L%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)1 2.29982

MaryplantedbasilH* L+H*L–L%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)1 2.3483and thenH* H* L–H%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)0 0.881633

and thenH* L+H*L–H%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)0 0.907302

PS1 PS2

PS3

DM1

DM2

Prompt 3

MaryplantedbasilH* !H*!H*L–L%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)1 2.4171MaryplantedbasilL+H*L–L%H* L–L%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)1 2.29982

MaryplantedbasilH* L+H*L–L%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)1 2.3483and thenH* H* L–H%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)0 0.881633

and thenH* L+H*L–H%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)0 0.907302

PS1 PS2

PS3

DM1

DM2

Average Duration and f0 Value of Prompts

Subject Object Prompt # & Accentual

Type dur

(ms) f0 (Hz) dur

(ms) f0 (Hz)

Pro mpt 1 H* !H*

332 201 537 162

Pro mpt 2 L+H*L-L% H*

352 219 543 173

Pro mpt 3 H* L+H*

319 203 607 198

Materials (cont’d)

2 prosodic variations of DM

1.‘And THEN.’

L+H* L-H%

2.‘And then.’

H* L-H%

DM 1

MaryplantedbasilH* !H*!H*L–L%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)1 2.4171MaryplantedbasilL+H*L–L%H* L–L%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)1 2.29982

MaryplantedbasilH* L+H*L–L%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)1 2.3483and thenH* H* L–H%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)0 0.881633

and thenH* L+H*L–H%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)0 0.907302

PS1 PS2

PS3

DM1

DM2

DM 2

MaryplantedbasilH* !H*!H*L–L%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)1 2.4171MaryplantedbasilL+H*L–L%H* L–L%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)1 2.29982

MaryplantedbasilH* L+H*L–L%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)1 2.3483and thenH* H* L–H%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)0 0.881633

and thenH* L+H*L–H%

75

300

100150200250

Time (s)0 0.907302

PS1 PS2

PS3

DM1

DM2

Average Duration and f0 Value of DMs

1st word (e.g., ‘and’)

2nd word (e.g., ‘t hen’) DM

Accent dur (ms) f0 (Hz) dur (ms) f0 (Hz)

L+H* 381 193 593 206 H* 395 209 499 176

Experimental Conditions DM1 (L+H*) DM2 (H*)

Prompt1 (H* !H*) C1 C2 Prompt 2 (L+H*L-L% H*) C3 C4 Prompt 3 (H* L+H*) C5 C6

Condition Prompt DM

C1 ‘Early on, Mary planted basil.’ ‘And NEXT…’

C2 ‘Early on, Mary planted basil.’ ‘And next…’

C3 ‘Early on, MARY planted basil.’ ‘And NEXT…’

C4 ‘Early on, MARY planted basil.’ ‘And next…’

C5 ‘Early on, Mary planted BASIL.’ ‘And NEXT…’

C6 ‘Early on, Mary planted BASIL.’ ‘And next…’

Conditions 1-6

Examples of Conditions 1-6

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

Procedure

• Participants (25 total) seated in soundproof booth and presented stimuli through Eprime

• Continuations recorded in Praat V4.5.15

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Non-Parallel Continuation (cont’d)

• Discourse Purpose violationThis 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.

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?

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.

Information StatusSubject Verb Post -verba l Argument

RetN : lexica lly ident ica l to Pro mpt sub ject

RetV: lexica lly ident ica l to Pro mpt ve rb

Ret A: lexica lly ident ica l to Pro mpt arg ument

RetP : pron oun of ParN ( i.e., ‘he’ or ‘she ’)

RetR : synony m to Pro mpt Verb (e.g ., picked ~ chose)

RetP : pron oun of ParA (i.e., ‘it’)

ContN: lexica lly ident ica l to pers on from Conte xt not ment ioned in Prompt

ContV: co ntrast ive act ion to Pro mpt verb

ContA: inferab le argu ment con trast ive to Pro mpt argu ment

ContP: prono un of ContN InfV: inferable but not contrast ive to Pro mpt verb

InfA: inferab le but no t contrast ive to Pro mpt argu ment

DP: pronoun of bo th peop le in Context (i.e., ‘they’)

RepV : act ion repea ted from Co ntext

Rep A/P: noun /pron oun of item from Conte xt

BN: brand new sub ject not ment ioned in discourse

NewV : non -inferab le act ion ne w to discour se

New A: non -inferab le concept ne w to disco urse

ShiftN: Pr ompt’s ob ject beco mes subject

ShiftA/P: no un/pronoun of Pro mpt sub ject

InfN: an y item in Conte xt other t han ParN or ContN

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

Example Transcription

she planted tomatoes

PN V N

subj main V DO

ParP ParV ContA

L+H*

0.52

–0.61

5000

0

0 1.67

200

75

FundamentalFrequency

(Hz)

SpectralFrequency

(Hz)

Time (s)

Amplitude(Pa)

Predictions

Comparison Pred ictions C1 versus C2 (no L+H*)

• More subject and argument contrast in 1C than 2C • Parallel subj /ectargument pairs with contrastive argum /entsubject more often in C1 than 2C

3 4C versus C (subject + *)L H

• More contrastive subjects in C3 thanC4 • More parallel arguments in 3C than 4C

5 6C versus C (object + *)L H

• More contrastive arguments in 5C than 6C • More parallel subjects in 5C than 6C

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

DM Accent and Parallel Continuation

• 573 continuations analyzed– 203 parallel (35%)

• L+H* on DM did not induce parallel continuation more than H*

DM# of Parallel

Continuations

L+H*

And NEXT104

H*

And next99

TOTAL 203

Experimental Conditions and Parallel Continuation

• L+H* on DM effect hinted at only when object of Prompt had L+H* (C5 & 6)

Accent Pattern Prompt ‡ DM

# of Parallel Continuations

C1 Mary planted basil. And THEN… 30

C2 Mary planted basil. And then… 30

C3 MARY planted basil. And THEN… 33

C4 MARY planted basil. And then…

39

C5 Mary planted BASIL. And THEN… 41

C6 Mary planted BASIL. And then… 30

TOTAL 203

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*

Accent Pattern Prompt ‡ DM

# of Parallel Continuations

C1 Mary planted basil. And THEN… 30

C2 Mary planted basil. And then… 30

C3 MARY planted basil. And THEN… 33

C4 MARY planted basil. And then…

39

C5 Mary planted BASIL. And THEN… 41

C6 Mary planted BASIL. And then… 30

TOTAL 203

Information Structure of Continuation Types

• Parallel continuations exhibit mainly contrastive subjects, parallel verbs, and contrastive arguments

Continuation Type

Contrastive Subject

Retained Subject

Contrastive Verb

Retained Verb

Contrastive Argument

Retained Argument

Parallel (203 total)

125 (62%)

65 (32%)

25 (12%)

160 (79%)

171 (84%)

24 (12%)

Non-parallel (333 total)

94 (28%)

117 (35%)

35 (11%)

15 (5%)

16 (5%)

35 (11%)

Ambiguous (37 total)

20 (54%)

16 (43%)

14 (38%)

7 (19%)

13 (35%)

9 (24%)

Information Status Distribution in Parallel Continuations

• No clear effect of DM accent in Prompt 1 (no L+H*)

• Patterns emerge for other Prompt types

Condition Contrast ive Sub ject

Reta ine d Sub ject

Contrast ive Verb

Reta ine d Verb

Contrast ive Argument

Reta ined Argumen t

C1 Mary plan ted

bas il. And THEN…

47% 37% 17% 80% 87% 13%

C2 Mary plan ted

bas il. And then …

70% 23% 17% 83% 87% 10%

C3 MARY

planted bas il. And THEN…

82% 18% 12% 82% 76% 18%

C4 MARY

planted bas il. And then …

56% 31% 15% 82% 87% 13%

C5 Mary plan ted BAS IL.

And THEN…

51% 46% 7% 80% 76% 15%

C6 Mary plan ted BAS IL.

And then …

67% 33% 7% 77% 97% 3%

Subject Prominence (C3 & 4)

• Contrastive subject more often when DM has L+H*

Condition Contrast ive Sub ject

Reta ine d Sub ject

Contrast ive Verb

Reta ine d Verb

Contrast ive Argument

Reta ined Argumen t

C1 Mary plan ted

bas il. And THEN…

47% 37% 17% 80% 87% 13%

C2 Mary plan ted

bas il. And then …

70% 23% 17% 83% 87% 10%

C3 MARY

planted bas il. And THEN…

82% 18% 12% 82% 76% 18%

C4 MARY

planted bas il. And then …

56% 31% 15% 82% 87% 13%

C5 Mary plan ted BAS IL.

And THEN…

51% 46% 7% 80% 76% 15%

C6 Mary plan ted BAS IL.

And then …

67% 33% 7% 77% 97% 3%

Subject Prominence (C3 & 4)

• Contrastive subject more often when

DM had L+H*

• Subject retained more often when DM did not have L+H*

Condition Contrast ive Sub ject

Reta ine d Sub ject

Contrast ive Verb

Reta ine d Verb

Contrast ive Argument

Reta ined Argumen t

C1 Mary plan ted

bas il. And THEN…

47% 37% 17% 80% 87% 13%

C2 Mary plan ted

bas il. And then…

70% 23% 17% 83% 87% 10%

C3 MARY

planted bas il. And THEN…

82% 18% 12% 82% 76% 18%

C4 MARY

planted bas il. And then…

56% 31% 15% 82% 87% 13%

C5 Mary plan ted BAS IL.

And THEN…

51% 46% 7% 80% 76% 15%

C6 Mary plan ted BAS IL.

And then…

67% 33% 7% 77% 97% 3%

Object Prominence (C5 & 6)

• More contrastive arguments when DM did not have L+H*

Condition Contrast ive Sub ject

Reta ine d Sub ject

Contrast ive Verb

Reta ine d Verb

Contrast ive Argument

Reta ined Argumen t

C1 Mary plan ted

bas il. And THEN…

47% 37% 17% 80% 87% 13%

C2 Mary plan ted

bas il. And then…

70% 23% 17% 83% 87% 10%

C3 MARY

planted bas il. And THEN…

82% 18% 12% 82% 76% 18%

C4 MARY

planted bas il. And then…

56% 31% 15% 82% 87% 13%

C5 Mary plan ted BAS IL.

And THEN…

51% 46% 7% 80% 76% 15%

C6 Mary plan ted BAS IL.

And then…

67% 33% 7% 77% 97% 3%

Object Prominence (C5 & 6)

• More contrastive arguments when DM did not have L+H*

• More retained arguments when DM had L+H*

Condition Contrast ive Sub ject

Reta ine d Sub ject

Contrast ive Verb

Reta ine d Verb

Contrast ive Argument

Reta ined Argumen t

C1 Mary plan ted

bas il. And THEN…

47% 37% 17% 80% 87% 13%

C2 Mary plan ted

bas il. And then…

70% 23% 17% 83% 87% 10%

C3 MARY

planted bas il. And THEN…

82% 18% 12% 82% 76% 18%

C4 MARY

planted bas il. And then…

56% 31% 15% 82% 87% 13%

C5 Mary plan ted BAS IL.

And THEN…

51% 46% 7% 80% 76% 15%

C6 Mary plan ted BAS IL.

And then…

67% 33% 7% 77% 97% 3%

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

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

Three Possibilities(2) L+H* in Prompt lead to different

expectations a/c the accent location

DM reinforces the appropriate expectation

Subject

Object

Subject

Object L+H*

Three Possibilities(3) L+H* in Prompt leads to different

expectations due to FOCUS PROJECTION

DM highlights the optional broader focus?

Subject

Object

Subject

Object L+H*

VP (Object)L+H*

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

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

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

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.’

Stimuli Problems (cont’d)

• Some items did exhibit appropriate salience of contrastive entities

Before selling their old Civic, Dewey and Anna took a whole day to clean it.

When they were nearly finished, Anna wiped the dashboard. And then…

– several salient contrasts with ‘dashboard’– not biased toward parallel continuation

Future Directions

• More subjects will be analyzed to confirm patterns presented here

• ToBI transcription and f0 analysis• Study to be conducted again with more

carefully controlled stimuli– Perhaps present both alternative subjects and

objects mentioned in Context

• Eye tracking to test effect of L+H* in prior discourse and on DM

Acknowledgments

• Laurie Maynell - voice of sitmuli

• Julie McGory - ToBI transcription

• Shari Speer - IRB help and considering problematic transcriptions