Transcript June11

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
utterances
e.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 DMs
Prosody differentiates the uses of multifunctional DMs
F: It was at one time all: almost all Jewish.
Now it’s I would say siJ:
sixty Jewish, forty Italian.
(Schiffrin, 1987: p231)
Intonational variation for DMs
They aren’t brought up the same way.
Now Italian people are very outgoing.
They are very generous.
When they put a meal on the table it’s a
meal.
e. Now these boys were Irish.
f. They lived different.
a.
b.
c.
d.
(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
Materials
Three-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 Prompt
1. ‘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
PS1
300
250
200
150
100
75
Mary
planted
H*
!H*
1
300
250
200
150
100
75
basil
!H*
L–L%
2.4171
Time (s)
Prompt 2
PS2
300
250
200
150
100
75
Mary
%
1
planted
L+H*L–L%
basil
H*
1
L–L%
2.29982
Time (s)
1
2.4171
Time (s)
Prompt 3
PS3
300
250
200
150
100
75
Mary
planted
H*
basil
L+H*
1
300
250
200
150
100
75
L–L%
2.3483
Time (s)
Average Duration and
f0 Value of Prompts
Prompt # &
Accentual
Type
Prompt 1
H* !H*
Prompt 2
L+H*L-L% H*
Prompt 3
H* L+H*
Subject
Object
dur f0 (Hz) dur
f0 (Hz)
(ms)
(ms)
332
201
537
162
352
219
543
173
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%
75
Mary
H*
planted
basil
L+H*
L–L%
DM 1
1
2.3483
Time (s)
DM1
300
250
200
150
100
75
and
H*
then
L+H*
0
L–H%
0.907302
Time (s)
7
1
1
Time (s)
DM 2
DM2
300
250
200
150
100
75
and
H*
%
3
2.29982
then
H*
0
L–H%
0.881633
Time (s)
Average Duration and
f0 Value of DMs
DM
Accent
L+H*
H*
1st word
(e.g., ФandХ)
2nd word
(e.g., ФthenХ)
dur (ms) f0 (Hz ) dur (ms) f0 (Hz )
381
395
193
209
593
499
206
176
Experimental Conditions
DM1 (L+H*)
Prompt1
(H* !H*)
Prompt 2
(L+H*L-L% H*)
Prompt 3
(H* L+H*)
DM2 (H*)
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
Conditions 1-6
Condition
Prompt
DM
C1
ФEarly on, Mary planted basil.Х
ФAndNEXTЙХ
C2
ФEarly on, Mary planted basil.Х
ФAnd nextЙХ
C3
ФEarly on, MARY planted basil.Х ФAndNEXTЙХ
C4
ФEarly on, MARY planted basil.Х ФAnd nextЙХ
C5
ФEarly on, Mary planted BASIL.Х ФAndNEXTЙХ
C6
ФEarly on, Mary planted BASIL.Х ФAnd nextЙХ
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 violation
This 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 Status
Subject
RetN: lexically identical
to Prompt subject
RetP: pronoun of ParN
(i.e., Ф
heХor ФsheХ)
Verb
RetV: lexically identical to
Prompt verb
RetR: synony m to
Prompt
Verb (e.g., picked ~
chose)
ContV: contrastive action
to Prompt verb
ContN: lexically identical
to person from Context
not mentioned in Prompt
ContP: pronoun of ContN InfV: inferable but not
contrast ive to Prompt
verb
DP: pronoun of both
RepV: action repeated
people in Context (i.e.,
from Context
ФtheyХ)
BN: brand new subject
NewV: non -inferable
not mentioned in
action new to discourse
discourse
ShiftN: PromptХsobject
becomes subject
InfN: any item in Context
other t han ParN or ContN
Post-verbal Argument
RetA: lexically identical
to Prompt argument
RetP: pronoun of ParA
(i.e., Ф
itХ)
ContA: inferable
argument contrastive to
Prompt argument
InfA: inferable but not
contrast ive to Prompt
argument
RepA/P: noun /pronoun of
item from Context
NewA: non -inferable
concept ne w to discourse
ShiftA/P: no un/pronoun
of Prompt subject
• Tags motivated by Ch. 2 ‘A theory of discourse coherence’ in
Coherence, Reference and the Theory of Grammar by Andrew Kehler (2002)
Example Transcription
0.52
Amplitude
(Pa)
–0.61
200
5000
Spectral
Frequency
(Hz)
Fundamental
Frequency
(Hz)
0
75
she
planted
tomatoes
PN
V
N
subj
main V
DO
ParP
ParV
ContA
L+H*
0
Time (s)
1.67
Predictions
• Informational focus should be more predictable from
Prompt when L+H* on DM than H*on DM
Comparison
C1 versus C2
(no L+H*)


C3 versus C4 
(subject L+H*) 
C5 versus C6
(object L+H*)


Predictions
More subject and argument contrast in C1 than C2
Parallel subject/argument pairs with contrastive
arg ument/subject more often in C1 than C2
More contrast ive subjects in C3 than C4
More parallel arguments in C3 than C4
More contrast ive arguments in C5 than C6
More parallel subjects in C5 than C6
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 NEXT
104
H*
And next
99
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
C1
Mary planted basil. And THENΙ
# of Parall el
Continuations
30
C2
Mary planted basil. And thenΙ
30
C3
MARY planted basil. And THENΙ
33
C4
MARY planted basil. And thenΙ
39
C5
Mary planted BASIL. And THENΙ
41
C6
Mary planted BASIL. And thenΙ
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
C1
Mary planted basil. And THENΙ
# of Parall el
Continuations
30
C2
Mary planted basil. And thenΙ
30
C3
MARY planted basil. And THENΙ
33
C4
MARY planted basil. And thenΙ
39
C5
Mary planted BASIL. And THENΙ
41
C6
Mary planted BASIL. And thenΙ
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
Parallel
(203 total)
Non-parallel
(333 total)
Ambiguous
(37 total)
125
(62%)
94
(28%)
20
(54%)
65
(32%)
117
(35%)
16
(43%)
25
(12%)
35
(11%)
14
(38%)
160
(79%)
15
(5%)
7
(19%)
Contrastive Retained
Argument Argument
171
(84%)
16
(5%)
13
(35%)
24
(12%)
35
(11%)
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
C1
Mary planted
basil.
And THENЙ
C2
Mary planted
basil.
And thenЙ
C3
MARY
planted basil.
And THENЙ
C4
MARY
planted basil.
And thenЙ
C5
Mary planted
BASIL.
And THENЙ
C6
Mary planted
BASIL.
And thenЙ
Contrastive Retained Contrastive Retained Contrastive Retained
Subject
Subject
Verb
Verb
Argument Argument
47%
37%
17%
80%
87%
13%
70%
23%
17%
83%
87%
10%
82%
18%
12%
82%
76%
18%
56%
31%
15%
82%
87%
13%
51%
46%
7%
80%
76%
15%
67%
33%
7%
77%
97%
3%
Subject Prominence (C3 & 4)
Condition
• Contrastive
subject more
often when
DM has L+H*
C1
Mary planted
basil.
And THENЙ
C2
Mary planted
basil.
And thenЙ
C3
MARY
planted basil.
And THENЙ
C4
MARY
planted basil.
And thenЙ
C5
Mary planted
BASIL.
And THENЙ
C6
Mary planted
BASIL.
And thenЙ
Contrastive Retained Contrastive Retained Contrastive Retained
Subject
Subject
Verb
Verb
Argument Argument
47%
37%
17%
80%
87%
13%
70%
23%
17%
83%
87%
10%
82%
18%
12%
82%
76%
18%
56%
31%
15%
82%
87%
13%
51%
46%
7%
80%
76%
15%
67%
33%
7%
77%
97%
3%
Subject Prominence (C3 & 4)
Condition
• Contrastive
subject more
often when
DM had L+H*
• Subject retained
more often
when DM did
not have L+H*
C1
Mary planted
basil.
And THENЙ
C2
Mary planted
basil.
And thenЙ
C3
MARY
planted basil.
And THENЙ
C4
MARY
planted basil.
And thenЙ
C5
Mary planted
BASIL.
And THENЙ
C6
Mary planted
BASIL.
And thenЙ
Contrastive Retained Contrastive Retained Contrastive Retained
Subject
Subject
Verb
Verb
Argument Argument
47%
37%
17%
80%
87%
13%
70%
23%
17%
83%
87%
10%
82%
18%
12%
82%
76%
18%
56%
31%
15%
82%
87%
13%
51%
46%
7%
80%
76%
15%
67%
33%
7%
77%
97%
3%
Object Prominence (C5 & 6)
Condition
• More contrastive
arguments when
DM did not have
L+H*
C1
Mary planted
basil.
And THENЙ
C2
Mary planted
basil.
And thenЙ
C3
MARY
planted basil.
And THENЙ
C4
MARY
planted basil.
And thenЙ
C5
Mary planted
BASIL.
And THENЙ
C6
Mary planted
BASIL.
And thenЙ
Contrastive Retained Contrastive Retained Contrastive Retained
Subject
Subject
Verb
Verb
Argument Argument
47%
37%
17%
80%
87%
13%
70%
23%
17%
83%
87%
10%
82%
18%
12%
82%
76%
18%
56%
31%
15%
82%
87%
13%
51%
46%
7%
80%
76%
15%
67%
33%
7%
77%
97%
3%
Object Prominence (C5 & 6)
Condition
• More contrastive
arguments when
DM did not have
L+H*
• More retained
arguments when
DM had L+H*
C1
Mary planted
basil.
And THENЙ
C2
Mary planted
basil.
And thenЙ
C3
MARY
planted basil.
And THENЙ
C4
MARY
planted basil.
And thenЙ
C5
Mary planted
BASIL.
And THENЙ
C6
Mary planted
BASIL.
And thenЙ
Contrastive Retained Contrastive Retained Contrastive Retained
Subject
Subject
Verb
Verb
Argument Argument
47%
37%
17%
80%
87%
13%
70%
23%
17%
83%
87%
10%
82%
18%
12%
82%
76%
18%
56%
31%
15%
82%
87%
13%
51%
46%
7%
80%
76%
15%
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*
Subject
Object  L+H*
Object
Three Possibilities
(2) L+H* in Prompt lead to different
expectations a/c the accent location
 DM reinforces the appropriate
expectation
Subject
Subject
L+H*
Object
Object
Three Possibilities
(3) L+H* in Prompt leads to different
expectations due to FOCUS PROJECTION
 DM highlights the optional broader focus?
Subject
Subject
L+H*
Object
L+H*
Object
VP (Object)
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